Crime: Metal Theft Task Force

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As I said, there is no doubt that the task force has been very successful and, together with the legislative change which this House assisted in bringing in, has made a great difference in the battle against metal theft. A judgment needs to be taken and the Government will consider this. The noble Lord might be interested to know that we received a letter on Tuesday from Paul Crowther, who is the ACPO leader on this matter.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lord, I associate myself very much with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, but the Scrap Metal Dealers Act to which he referred contained one major defect. Local authorities which license scrap metal dealing are not able to do it through their non-executive licensing functions but have to do it through their executive or cabinet, which is causing difficulties and problems. When will this be remedied?

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I return again to the relationship between public spaces protection orders and what I call special categories of land. This in an important issue, so I will dwell on it for a few minutes. I raised this at Second Reading and in Committee I suggested that these special types of land, where public access is specified and guaranteed by other legislation, should be excluded from public spaces protection orders. The categories of land are: access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, which is mountain, moor, heath, down and commons and now includes the coastal footpath and coastal access land where that has so far been designated in England; village greens and town greens; and rights of way—mainly footpaths and bridleways—which appear on a definitive map and the statement of rights of way which nowadays comes under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and is held by top-tier local authorities.

The purpose of the designation of these kinds of land is to allow public access. To have public spaces protection orders put on them which deny that access looks like an easy and quick way for local authorities to prevent access, which is otherwise a fairly difficult and convoluted process. Public footpaths can be closed or diverted. There is a process by which, over time, access land can have its designation removed. There is also a process by which exceptions and exclusions can be made to access land, under the CROW Act. However, these take time and are difficult, for very good reasons.

In Committee, the Minister said this was okay but that rights of access were for specific purposes. For village greens it is informal recreation. For footpaths it is, obviously, walking along them. For access land it is for accessing that land on foot, together with a restricted number of ancillary activities, such as stopping and having a picnic or taking photographs, but there are a lot of activities which are not allowed. Anti-social behaviour may well be taking place on some of that land which is affecting the enjoyment of it by the people for whom the designation has been made, such as the people walking on it. That is a fair point, so Amendment 47 does not say that public spaces protection orders should not be made on this land. It says that, if they are made, they cannot remove the right of access which is the whole purpose of the land.

I know the Government do not want to do this. I do not know why, because it is very sensible. Nevertheless, I am pressing the case to give the Minister the opportunity of saying exactly how these access rights will be protected. I have had a letter about this from Norman Baker, who was in charge of the Bill within the department. I will read some of it out, because it has not been widely circulated and it is worth putting on record:

“I note your concerns that the new public spaces protection order is a much wider power than the three orders it replaces, and as such could be used to restrict access to common land, access land and rights of way on the definitive map. However, I believe the test and the safeguards we have built in mitigate such a risk.

As Lord Taylor made clear during the debate in Committee, these types of land are important and certainly worthy of the additional debate they received. In fact, in the draft guidance, we specifically mentioned a number of these categories of land because of their importance to both the local community and visitors to the area”.

One of the points that I raised in Committee was the importance of the national bodies that look after this kind of land—the Ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council and the Open Spaces Society, as well as landowners’ organisations and others—being involved in any change in the system. Mr Baker writes:

“We also made clear that where restrictions were necessary, national bodies could play an important role in the consultation process”—

that is not something that I had picked up—

“to ensure that all those affected have a chance to comment. I know my officials are continuing to work with interested groups with a view to making this even clearer in the final iteration”.

This is the vital importance of the statutory guidance, as it now will be, to prevent what I might call rogue local authorities—there are one or two—taking advantage of this legislation and doing things that are not intended. The letter continues:

“However, in terms of restricting access on certain categories of land, I do not believe that this would pass the test, in part because of the final limb, which states that the anti-social behaviour, ‘justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice’. Given the importance of these areas, whether coastal access land or registered common, I cannot envisage a level of behaviour that would constitute such a draconian response. Where a problem behaviour does exist, the flexibility within the PSPO means that the behaviour itself can be targeted rather than access in its totality. This is a major failing in the current system where unless the anti-social behaviour is related to dogs or alcohol, the local authority is left with limited options, too quickly resorted to ‘gating’ in some situations.

In addition, the behaviour that has to be restricted on this land has to be ‘unreasonable’. Again, given the rights afforded to commoners through other legislation, I fail to see how someone exercising these rights in a responsible manner (for instance, pannage) could be considered to be acting in an unreasonable way. As such, I believe these rights are adequately protected”.

In reading that out, I apologise to the Minister if I have stolen his thunder and he was going to say exactly the same things. However, at the very least, I would like him to guarantee here in the Chamber that what I have said is true and that that is the way in which the Government look at it. In the end, of course, how it comes out in the wash will be how we will judge it. However, the discussions that we have had have been useful in clarifying these issues and in concentrating the minds of people in government as to exactly how these things might work. I hope that the Government will accept my amendment. I have no great optimism about that but, anyway, I beg to move.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves has once again articulated his argument well and, if I may say so, he has also articulated mine. In quoting the letter from Norman Baker he has to some degree stolen my thunder. However, as my noble friend asked that I reiterate the position of the Government on the record, I will do so.

The types of land that he mentioned in his amendment are important and worthy of the additional discussion. Common land, village greens, rights of way and open access land all play an important part both in local communities and in our nation’s heritage. This is exactly why they should be protected from the minority of anti-social individuals who ruin this enjoyment by acting in a way that is unreasonable. I am glad that my noble friend has accepted that the new public spaces protection order could be used positively to protect the categories of land he identifies.

The amendment itself, though, seeks to protect any rights conferred on individuals or groups as a result of other legislation. As I have said before, this amendment is unnecessary. For a new order to be made, the activities have to be “unreasonable”. I do not believe that someone exercising their rights to, for example, collect firewood in a particular woodland could be considered to be acting unreasonably. In addition, while in theory the council could seek to restrict access to that land altogether, I do not believe that that would meet the final limb of the test—namely, that the activities justified the restrictions. Such an absolute ban would likely be disproportionate in legal terms. Indeed, it is the flexibility that we have built into the new power that makes sure that the nuclear option, to use that phrase, is truly a last resort. Where problem behaviour does exist, this flexibility means that the behaviour itself can be targeted rather than access in its totality. This is a major failing in the current system where unless the anti-social behaviour is related to dogs or alcohol, the council is left with limited options, and too quickly resorts to gating in some situations.

However, I do believe that where the anti-social behaviour is unreasonable and so bad as to justify restrictions, the council, in consultation with the police and others, should have the ability to act, and act fast. That said, given the continuing concerns which my noble friend has expressed, I assure him that Home Office officials will continue to work with interested bodies to see how the statutory guidance can address these issues more effectively. We have already emphasised in the draft guidance the importance of these categories of land, but the draft guidance is exactly that—a draft. We want to make sure that by the time we publish the final statutory guidance, it reflects the needs of professionals and the interests of the users of rights of way, access land and village greens.

Many professionals will be aware of the special rights and protections afforded to such land, but where they are not, we can make sure they have the relevant information so that their decisions and actions reflect the needs of the whole community. In the light of these assurances I have given, rather reiterating points made by my friend, colleague and fellow Minister Mr Norman Baker, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

I also dodged the issue of whether Norman Baker was right honourable or honourable.

I am grateful for what the Minister has said and I think that the general tenor of what the Government are saying on these has shifted a little bit in the right direction. I am grateful to the Minister for his help and assistance in these matters.

I still think there is a possibility of conflict—for example, if there is a village green where traditionally the kids play cricket in the middle of summer, and the cottages around the village green are all bought up by townies who go and live there at weekends and complain about the fact that cricket balls are coming into their gardens. That is the kind of conflict which could happen, and where a PSPO might try to stop them playing cricket despite the fact that that was part of the traditional informal recreation there.

However, the national organisations now clearly have an accepted role, which was in doubt at the beginning of this process, so—combined with the tenacity and vigour with which my friends in the Open Spaces Society pursue these matters—I hope that it will never get to the High Court to sort things out, but at least I am happy in the knowledge that that would be possible if it came to it. Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for all his help, and for that of his colleague, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, may I say a word following on from Amendment 54? It is on a matter that I raised in Committee, which is how parts of this Bill fit in with the existing nuisance legislation.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and those with whom he worked on what is now the Live Music Act 2012 remain concerned about the possibility of local authorities using public space protection order powers when there is existing nuisance legislation that could be used against a particular nuisance—though I think that they do not regard much music as “nuisance”. There have been some awkward examples of some local authorities banning busking and other live music-making during “reasonable hours”; and when I say that, I would probably agree that they are reasonable, but I do not particularly want to bring that into the equation here. During hours when there have been a small number of complaints, the local authorities would argue that such action is reasonable and there is a concern that the powers might be used far more extensively than the Government would have in mind. They have spoken to me about balancing competing rights between freedom of expression and the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions—in this case the items that are being used for busking.

I am making the point now in the hope that the Government may be able to say something about guidance on the fit between the statutory powers under this Bill and statutory nuisance. I raised the issue at the previous stage following discussions with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. I know that officials are working on this area of the guidance but I also know that those who have been in touch with me will be grateful if they can have further discussions on and further input into what will now be statutory guidance. Clearly those who are working on these issues day-to-day still feel uncomfortable that their concerns about what I called “workability” have not quite been taken on board.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lady Hamwee for their hard work on this section of the Bill. They have proposed a number of amendments, many of which have informed government thinking. Indeed, these government amendments are based on ideas that came from the debates we had in Committee with them. We have yet to dispose of my noble friend’s Amendment 55, but I hope he will at a suitable moment see fit not to move it.

The role that my noble friend Lady Hamwee has emphasised depends on the statutory guidance, which is very important in this area. This is a matter for consultation. We want to get the statutory guidance right and ensure that it allows councils maximum flexibility. We do not want to miss the chance, particularly as the guidance will now be statutory, of making sure that we give background information on the exercise of all the elements of these parts of the Bill for the efficient use of anti-social behaviour powers.

I hope I have reassured my noble friend Lady Hamwee on the importance we attach to the guidance and my noble friend Lord Greaves about our recognition of the need to publicise what is going on in connection with the consultations that will take place.

[Lord Greaves]

Why does it say “publish” for one and “publicise” for the other?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sure someone will know the answer to that; I am not entirely sure. “Publish”, I suspect, implies that it is in a particular form; “publicise” is perhaps multiple publication. However, I am only hazarding a guess, without being particularly good in my command of language.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, that is very interesting. The discussion went beyond where I thought it might go. I was talking really about footpaths and bridleways but we now find that this power may apply to a majority of the road network in this country—no?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I point my noble friend to Clause 61(1), in which he will find a list of the highways to which it cannot apply.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I think the Minister is relying on Clause 61(1)(e), which refers to,

“a highway in England of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State”,

because the rest of them are,

“a special road … a trunk road … a classified or principal road … a strategic road”.

I am not sure that in terms of sheer mileage, they cover more than half the roads in the country. Unclassified roads are legion. No doubt they will appear in the prescribed description of roads made by the Secretary of State. To add to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we really want to know what roads will be prescribed under that subsection so that we can work out what is left and what might become public space.

As I say, that is all very interesting. On the first amendment, on private rights of way, I hesitate to get into the intricacies of private rights of way because there has been quite a lot of case law and it is all very complicated. I ask the Minister to have another look at it because it is quite possible for private rights of way to cross public land that will be designated as public space. This needs a bit more attention. Having said that, I withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thought that I would be getting my views on this clause clarified. I am even more muddled, having heard this debate, than I was before. That is no fault of those taking part; lots of valid questions have been asked, which will need answering. I assume that my noble friend the Minister will copy any letters he sends to people around the Committee so that we can all see his answers. Is that the case?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am certainly quite prepared to make my correspondence as broad as anybody would wish. I have certainly noted the people who have taken an interest in this matter and will try to make sure that everybody is included in the correspondence.

[Lord Greaves]

I am most grateful, as I am sure other noble Lords are. I have two quick points. For all this talk of whether it is the High Court or judicial review, they are both way above the abilities of ordinary people. If I go on a local footpath anywhere in this country and I find that it is blocked and complain to the highways authority, and the highways authority does nothing about it, I can go to the court to make the highways authority do something about it. That court is the magistrates’ court. However, if I then find signs up saying that the local authority has just issued a public spaces protection order to stop me walking on it, there is no way on God’s earth that I will go to the High Court, because ordinary folk do not do that kind of thing. There may well be Members of this Committee and your Lordships’ House who spend half their time in the High Court, but most of us do not; and after the one or two occasions on which we have ever been there, we may never want to go back again.

If there are to be decisions like this, which affect basic, historic rights to walk on paths and land, there needs to be a proper appeals mechanism just as there is under the Highways Act. If a local authority closes a footpath under the Highways Act and you do not like it, you can appeal to the magistrates’ court. That is the sort of level at which ordinary people can function. Are the Government saying that ordinary people are not able to get help and support from organisations that can operate at a higher level, such as the Ramblers or perhaps the CLA, but are on their own? Sorry, but they are individuals, and it clearly states here that it is about an individual, not even a local business, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said.

I think that there is something wrong and we need to have further discussions about it, but not now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, Clause 63(1) states that:

“It is an offence for a person without reasonable excuse”.

The words “without reasonable excuse” are part of the reason for putting these probing amendments down in order to find out what they mean. Subsection (1) continues,

“(a) to do anything that the person is prohibited from doing by a public spaces protection order, or,

(b) to fail to comply with a requirement to which the person is subject under a public spaces protection order”.

Again, my amendments refer to the kinds of access that are specifically enabled by legislation, historic practice and common law; that is, rights of way, commons, village greens and town greens. Amendment 56ZA is about those. It states:

“Subsection (1) does not apply if the prohibition or restriction relates to—

(a) travel along a footpath, bridleway, restricted byway or byway open to all traffic”,

or presence on access land. If I am walking along with an Ordnance Survey map in my hand, or if I am a bit more modern and I have a fancy phone or tablet, and I walk on to this land or on to footpaths where access has been prohibited from access by a public spaces protection order, why should I become a criminal for doing things which, on the face of it, I believe to be reasonable? This amendment probes to what extent that would be a criminal offence. The question is, would I be behaving in a reasonable way if I did that? If I met an owner, a resident or somebody else who told me to get off because some sort of spaces order had been made on the land, would I still be breaking the law if I said, “No. I’ve got this Ordnance Survey map which maps the access land and shows the rights of way, and I’m okay”?

Amendment 56ZB states:

“A person does not commit an offence unless the local authority has displayed information about the relevant restrictions and requirements on or adjacent to the land that is subject to the public spaces protection notice in such a way that it is reasonable for the person to have seen the notice”.

The possibility under public spaces protection orders for people to break the law but not know that they are breaking the law—in other words, breaking the order, which is an offence—simply because the local authority or other authorities have not provided adequate information on the site, is very great indeed. These are probing amendments to test what would happen under those circumstances. I beg to move.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I understand that these are probing amendments relating to the circumstances in which someone may commit an offence when a public spaces protection order is breached. I can see the reasoning behind Amendment 56ZA. Clearly, it is hard to see how using a public right of way in an appropriate and responsible manner, or mere presence on common land, a town or village green, or on access land, could constitute an offence. However, in the extreme circumstances where the council, in consultation with the relevant bodies, has decided to place restrictions on access to the land that apply to everyone, there must be a penalty for breach.

Similarly, Amendment 56ZB seeks to provide that it is not an offence to breach the conditions of a public spaces protection order if the local authority has not publicised it in a certain way. As I have said before, I do not believe it is for primary legislation to state how restrictions will be publicised; not least there may be situations where it is not necessary or appropriate to do so in the entirely sensible way my noble friend suggests. The place for this is in regulations or guidance.

However, on the more important point of a defence of reasonable excuse, I would like to assure my noble friend that a person commits an offence only if they breach a condition without reasonable excuse. The courts carefully consider whether there is a “reasonable excuse” to breach an order if the local authority has not publicised it appropriately. As such, regardless of what is in the legislation, or indeed the guidance, it is in the best interests of the local authority to make sure that people using the public space know what is expected of them; otherwise, it becomes unenforceable. Earlier this evening we discussed unenforceable legislation in connection with a matter affecting this House.

I hope that, with this reassurance, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the real problem with this measure is that it criminalises trespass in certain circumstances where people not only think they are not trespassing but have evidence in their hand which shows that they are allowed to be there. This is the potential problem that could arise. I am not sure that the Minister’s answer has tackled that thoroughly and completely. This issue needs further discussion but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this is a large group of amendments which essentially comes down to the purpose of these orders. Perhaps I may take the last point first as that is often easier. The conditions that have to be considered include that the effect of the activities, in the second limb,

“justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice”.

I am looking at Clause 55(3)(c), so there is a requirement for balance in the creation of a public spaces protection order within the Bill. It is certainly not the case that, in introducing these public spaces protection orders, we are seeking to give local authorities an undiluted right to close off areas without proper consideration of the legal and proper activity being conducted in those areas.

The problem with my noble friend’s amendments is that he is suggesting that the lives of people in the locality would already have to have been affected for some time before the council could act. We are anticipating that there will be circumstances in which, because of other activities, the council may wish to create a public spaces protection order in advance of, let us say, a new development. For example, if a council wanted to open a new children’s play area, it may wish to place restrictions on that area either to prohibit dogs from entering or to allow them only if they are kept on a lead. If my noble friend’s amendments were accepted, the council would have to wait until irresponsible dog ownership turned up as a feature before it could address that. We dealt in a previous debate with the problems that can come through displaced activities, so I hope that my noble friend will understand that we see it as being for a council to exercise judgment on these matters.

Only those behaviours that are linked to a detrimental activity can be applied. Any additions to that list would be treated as a variation under Clause 57 and be subject to the same tests and consultation. Having got a public spaces protection order, it can be varied only by starting the consultative process again. I hope that my noble friend is reassured by that; if he is not, I can tell him that any variation of an order could be challenged in the High Court. Where orders are deemed to be unnecessary or disproportionate, there is still the ability for those affected to challenge it in court. The council will be mindful of this when judging whether the test has been met.

I fully understand why my noble friend is making these points. In the draft guidance published last month we have included guidelines on the aspects and impacts that should be considered before an order is used. We will, of course, continue to develop the guidance to try and cover the point raised by my noble friend, but I fear that including it in the Bill would make it hard for a council to act quickly and deal effectively with anti-social behaviour.

I think that I have covered the issue of the future impacts. Regarding Amendment 32, I would like to be clear that the aim behind this amendment is to allow councils to design solutions around local needs. Clause 55(6) will result in the closure of rights of way being less likely under a new regime. It will allow specific problems to be dealt with without the recourse to completely closing a public space, as I have said.

There is some flexibility in these orders that will suit both those who wish to go about exercising their legitimate rights and those who wish to make sure that anti-social behaviour can be tackled. I agree with my noble friend that these orders have to be used proportionately. The benefit to the community in tackling detrimental activities must be balanced against the impact of any prohibitions or requirements. I believe that local councils are capable of making such assessments and coming to the right decisions, having consulted the local community. If they get it wrong, or are perceived to have got it wrong, an order can be challenged in the courts. Given the safeguards that we have built into the legislation, which are reinforced by the draft guidance we have published, the Bill gets the balance right and I hope that my noble friend would be willing, on that basis, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, that takes us into some very useful discussion and I am grateful to my noble friend for his careful response. What he said about play areas and the ability of councils to put a public spaces protection order on a new play area to keep dogs out, for example, or perhaps because they wish to have areas under a PSPO where dogs would have to be kept on a lead, indicates that what is being proposed is not a minor thing. It is a very powerful new proposal with a strong power. Some might think that it is far-reaching and draconian but, if councils behave properly, it may be valuable.

As a local councillor, I have to say that I am very attracted by the idea of being able to make public spaces protection orders. I can think of all sorts of places where suitable orders might be introduced—so I am not against them at all. What I am concerned about is whether there are sufficient safeguards. My noble friend refers to the right of appeal to the High Court but, in terms of closing footpaths, the right of appeal on closing a right of way is to the magistrates’ court. Most people concerned about such a matter can undertake an appeal to the magistrates’ court. They would not want to go to the High Court to appeal against an order. There is a real concern here that the powers being given to local authorities are very strong, potentially very beneficial but also powers that could be misused. Being able to go only to the High Court is a problem.

Finally, the Minister referred to the draft guidance that has been produced, which is very helpful and useful. Like my noble friend Lady Hamwee on guidance, earlier today I said that it was a good thing that in this Bill that there was not much provision for the Secretary of State to make orders and regulations. In practice, what is going to happen is that the Secretary of State will issue guidance, which in effect will be instructions to local authorities. It will be a very brave local authority that does not follow the guidance. I am not sure that non-statutory guidance in that sense is any better than statutory orders and regulations, which at least potentially can have some parliamentary scrutiny. However, I am very grateful for my noble friend’s comments. There are further things to discuss here before we get to Report but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Baroness has only referred to one part of the second condition; there are three tests within the second condition alone. With the extra requirements set out in the second condition, I am satisfied that we have provided sufficient safeguards to ensure that these orders cannot be used to prevent peaceful protests or free speech. It is also worth mentioning that local authorities and the courts—I am sorry to come back to the courts, but we rely on them to make sure that legislation is properly used—must exercise their obligations compatibly with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrine the rights to freedom of expression and association respectively. They are intrinsic in any matter concerning peaceful public protest or free speech.

That is not to say that public order legislation will not continue to apply; it can still apply. My remarks should therefore not be taken as licence to include threatening or abusive words on a placard, or the bearer of the placard containing that sort of wording could be liable to arrest. There is overriding public order legislation, but the test on a public spaces protection order has to satisfy the notion that it is a behaviour which is persistent and continuing, is or is likely to be such as to make activities unreasonable and justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice. All three of those have to be part of the second condition, let alone the first. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

I am grateful for that discussion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her support. It is clearly a complicated matter. I will go away and look carefully at what the Minister has said. I suspect that I will not be completely satisfied but, nevertheless, perhaps looking forward to further discussions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendments in this group. I am happy to say that I believe there is merit in a number of his suggestions. I hope that he will be pleased by my response to his amendments.

Amendments 35, 45 and 50 would see the landowner consulted, if this is not the council—the council could, of course, be the landowner—before a public spaces protection order is made. I accept that it is entirely appropriate that the council should take reasonable steps to consult either the landowner or occupier of any land to be covered by a public spaces protection order. It is conceivable that this could be done through a relevant community representative under Clause 55(7)(b), but I acknowledge that the owner or occupier is in rather a different position and should be consulted directly where they can be identified. Likewise, Amendments 37, 47 and 52 would add parish councils, county councils and community councils to the list of bodies to be consulted where appropriate. Again, I accept that there is a case for having these bodies on the face of the legislation for the avoidance of doubt, and I would like to consider this matter further between now and Report. The viability of parish councils can vary enormously. I come from one of the largest parishes in England. Holbeach has a population of not far off 10,000 people and has its own resources, including a park and sports areas, so it is a considerable body in its own right.

Amendments 38, 49 and 53 would make provisions for prior public consultation where an authority wishes to issue, vary or extend an order. These go into more detail than the requirement to consult,

“whatever community representatives the local authority thinks … appropriate”.

As my noble friend Lord Ahmad said on the previous group of amendments, we have considered the points made by the Delegated Powers Committee about publicising orders and accept that such a requirement should be written into the Bill. Our amendments will require orders to be publicised before they are made, extended, varied or discharged. I hope my noble friend will accept that the government amendments achieve the substance of his Amendments 38, 49 and 53. It follows that having publicised its intention to make an order, a council is duty bound to consider any representations it receives in response to such a notification. We do not need to provide for this on the face of the Bill.

If I understand my noble friend’s scheme correctly, Amendments 36, 46 and 51 are consequential upon Amendments 38, 49 and 53. These amendments would remove the more generic reference to consulting “community representatives”. However, I still see merit in leaving reference to community representatives, which could include residents’ associations or other local, or indeed national, bodies.

This brings me on to Amendment 56ZC, which seeks to remove any doubt as to whether a national body falls within the category of community representative. While I believe that the Bill already covers the situations that my noble friend envisages, this additional clarity would be helpful and I would like to assure my noble friend that I will consider it.

I am also sympathetic to the sentiment behind Amendments 39 and 40, which relate to publicising an order once it has been made. Amendment 39 would specify that when an order is publicised this should include putting it on the local authority’s website. It was always our intention to keep the regulations light touch to ensure maximum flexibility at a local level. However, I suggest that in order to future-proof the legislation we avoid referencing websites specifically in the Bill so that if more appropriate media are developed in 10 years we do not require primary legislation. But we can certainly make clear in the regulations that the council should publish the order, at the very least, on its website.

Similarly, Amendment 40 seems to set a reasonable expectation that once an order is in place it will be available for inspection. Indeed, we would expect this to be best practice, although perhaps publishing the order on the website might make it more widely accessible than making it available at the council’s offices, as the amendment proposes. The point is well made but this matter is best addressed in guidance.

My noble friend Lord Redesdale opened up a tricky issue in an almost pre-emptive strike on our debates on dogs, if I may say so. However, quite a number of aspects of this matter are covered in the draft Home Office guidance on controlling the presence of dogs. When deciding whether to make requirements or restrictions on dogs and their owners, local councils will need to consider whether there are suitable alternatives for dogs to be exercised without restrictions. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, dog owners are required to provide for the welfare needs of their animals. This includes providing the necessary amount of exercise each day. Councils should be aware of the publicly accessible parks and other public places in their area that dog walkers can use to exercise their dogs without restrictions. I therefore hope that my noble friend is reassured about that, although he should also understand that we need to keep the public safe from dogs that are out of control. We will no doubt be discussing that delicate balance when we reach the dog provisions in the Bill.

I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend Lord Greaves on at least a number of the points he has raised through these amendments. I hope he will accept that the government amendments to Clauses 55 to 57 go some considerable way to addressing his concerns. I have also said that I will take away Amendments 35, 37, 45, 47, 50, 52 and 56ZC and consider them further in advance of Report. I make no commitment to bringing forward government amendments at that stage but will certainly reflect very carefully on the points he has made. With that commitment, I ask my noble friend not to press his amendments.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am a little overwhelmed by this stream of ministerial reasonableness, having spent most of the past 13 years in your Lordships’ House moving amendments and being met by the stubbornness of, “We must defend our Bill at all costs”. Seriously, I am grateful for what the Minister has said and, in the hope that we will get a good mix of government amendments and assurances about what will clearly and firmly be in the guidance, I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am grateful for some of that, I think. I am less overwhelmed than I was on the previous group of amendments, but there are some issues there to latch on to and have further discussions and debates about. The Minister has several times today made the point that public spaces protection orders are more flexible than, for example, gating orders or some of the other things they may replace, and it is a good point. Local authorities will find useful the ability to place sensible rules on the use of a right of way that might, for example, go near houses. From that point of view, the flexibility in the orders is a good thing. The problem is that the bottom line is that access can be stopped by quick, quite easy administrative procedures which can be appealed in the High Court only. That drives a coach and horses—that is the wrong image for footpaths—through the existing Highways Act legislation, which provides the opportunity to close a public footpath, but makes it much more difficult. There are many more hoops to go through. Those hoops are there for very good reasons. Perhaps the Minister might consider a two-stage process for public protection orders, making it clear to local authorities that they cannot just go straight to closing access if they have not tried these other more flexible means instead.

In practice, once you have banned people from going on a village green, you have lost. Whoever is doing it, they have lost. If there is anti-social behaviour on a village green, it must be tackled as anti-social behaviour to stop it. It is not a sensible answer to it to say that nobody can go on to a village or town green or access land because a minority are ruining it by “careless and irresponsible activity”, to quote the Minister. We all agree that careless and irresponsible activity has to be stopped when it is causing a nuisance, but the problem is the knock-on effect of preventing everybody else using historic facilities. They are not being careless but are being perfectly responsible. Keeping them off because a minority are hooligans is the wrong approach. If there is a minority of hooligans, we have to tackle that minority.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It would pay my noble friend to read Clause 55 to see that it is targeted at behaviour, not space. I recognise exactly his concerns—the anti-social activity is targeted in the order. Subsection (8) states that the order must,

“identify the activities … explain the effect … specify the period for which the order has effect”.

I hope that my noble friend will study this because a lot of his anxieties are taken care of not just in guidance but in the Bill.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, that is true, but I shall finish where I started on public spaces protection orders. They are different from the other orders because, although they are based on people’s behaviour, the order goes not on the people but on the land. Because it goes on the land it affects everybody. That is the difference and why we have to be very careful.

I was going to read out some of the draft guidance that has been produced so far but I thought that your Lordships would probably not want to hear. It is pretty weak—it is considering, thinking about and then getting on with it. The guidance—if that is what we are to rely on—will have to beefed up very considerably. On that basis, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am quoting from the information I have received, which is the interpretation of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. When I received it, it sounded slightly topsy-turvy, but nevertheless this has been in use for some time and I expect that there are precedents for the use of this Act. As I say, my noble friend can be reassured that the majority of notices of this type are served either by a visit or by recorded delivery. I shall seek to elaborate further on this and write to my noble friend.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, on behalf of parish and town councils I thank the Minister for his slightly helpful comments at the end of his remarks. Perhaps, before the Bill is implemented, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I and the NALC might get together to see whether we can put forward a clear, evidence-based proposal to the Government which they might consider seriously.

I thank the Minister for his helpful reply to my Amendment 22QYA, which I had forgotten to speak to.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

I refer to a real case, which has been dealt with by serving planning notices, particularly Section 215 tidying-up notices, which are similar to the kind of notice that we are talking about now. The problem is associated with inappropriate use of land which is causing problems to people living adjacent to it. It is the use of the land that is the problem, but notices have to be served on the owner of the land, and the owner simply keeps transferring the ownership to somebody else, or to another company and then back again. The question that I am really asking is whether the Government could look at whether a community protection notice could be served on the land in some instances so that whoever owned that land would have to deal with the problems on it. If the problem is a dog, it is not associated directly with land—but, if it is a piece of land, could that possibly be considered?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I would certainly wish to consider the concept that my noble friend has presented to the Committee by tabling the amendment. It is well worth noting the illustration that he has given; we need to be certain that we have protected against that sort of situation. I shall no doubt be getting in touch with him and will try to consider this matter before Report. Meanwhile, I am grateful to him for raising this issue. Transferring the interest after a notice is issued may solve a problem, but it is not a ground for appeal, as he will understand.

My noble friend also asked about the difference between nuisance and annoyance and detrimental effect and how come the definitions are different. We have taken elements from existing powers; nuisance and annoyance has worked well, as we have said, in housing law, while detrimental effect is used in current environmental powers. It is also well understood. That is why we have transferred that language to this notice.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. On Amendment 22NB, the provision specifically allows for a requirement to be attached to a community protection notice that includes reasonable steps to achieve specified results. This preventive limb of the new notice is integral to the process and I am surprised the noble Lord wishes to see it removed. Under this provision, authorised officers could, for example, include a requirement for a dog owner to attend dog training classes to ensure they are better able to control their dog in future. If there was any doubt as to why the provision is necessary, I hope I have clarified the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I will be brief: I am sure the Committee would want me to be so. I can be very reassuring to my noble friend. He presents what is a very serious issue. Japanese knotweed is not the only invasive and destructive plant, as indeed he mentioned.

In reforming the anti-social behaviour powers, we have deliberately created flexible powers that can be used to stop or prevent any behaviour that meets the legal test. We have streamlined the powers, and introducing a specific use for the community protection notice would be to reinvent the behaviour-specific powers we are trying to repeal.

However, as currently drafted, the CPN can be used to require someone to control or prevent the growth of these plants, or any others capable of causing the havoc that they do. It is non-specific in terms of the nature of the plant and in the sense that it does not necessarily refer to invasive plants in the legislation. But the test is that the conduct of the individual or body is having a detrimental effect of a persistent or continuing nature on the quality of life of those in the locality, and that the conduct is unreasonable. Those are the tests. In this case, the conduct can just as easily be interpreted to mean inaction, so not taking action to remove it can come under a CPN.

I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that the amendment does not add to the powers currently available in the Bill and elsewhere, and I ask him to withdraw it.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am very pleased with that response. It is the most positive thing that I have heard a government Minister say about Japanese knotweed in the 10 years that I have been banging on about it in your Lordships’ House, along with other noble Lords. I am very grateful for that.

What I would really like to see when this legislation is passed, as it no doubt will be, is joint advice. I realise that the legislation will not refer to specific problems, whether Japanese knotweed, littering or anything else because the whole purpose of the CPN is to be general. But it would be very helpful if the Home Office and Defra could issue joint advice—together with CLG or anyone else—to councils and people about how to deal with this when the legislation is passed. There is a huge reluctance on behalf of many councils because they are frightened of the problem. They think that it is too expensive and that it cannot be solved. It is absolutely crucial that there is a war against Japanese knotweed throughout this country to get rid of it as far as possible.

I shall be badgering the Government to do that when this legislation is passed, but I am delighted by what the Minister said. I shall put it out, reprint it, pass it around and make him famous. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

I am very grateful for that additional information, which is entirely different from anything that was within my ken or understanding. That is an interesting point but I only included the Welsh body since it made up the set. However, I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of why he thinks that the Environment Agency not just needs these powers, since other bodies can work with it and do the work, but why it is capable—why it has the resources and competence—to manage injunctions and the people whom they will be served upon. I beg to move.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, we will come to the Welsh relationship with the Bill later on in our consideration of it, if not with this particular amendment. However, I will speak to my noble friend’s amendment, which would see the Environment Agency and its Welsh equivalent removed from the list of bodies that can apply for the new injunction. As my noble friend may or may not know, the Environment Agency has been able to apply for anti-social behaviour orders since 2006. Alongside Transport for London, this was done by an order under Section 1A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Noble Lords might not be aware of that provision, as it does not appear on the face of that legislation but was done under an order.

The Environment Agency has not used the anti-social behaviour order often but we believe that it should retain access to its replacement so that, as a national body, it can take fast and effective action to tackle serious environmental anti-social behaviour, rather than relying on the police or council. On Report in the House of Commons the list was extended to include the Natural Resources Body for Wales, to give the Environment Agency’s sister body similar access to the injunction. The Natural Resources Body for Wales manages some 6% of Wales’s land area, including many woodland visitor attractions and nature reserves. As such, it should be able to apply for an injunction when someone decides to act anti-socially on that land.

I understand the concerns over too many agencies having access to such an important tool, but I believe that the list included in Clause 4 represents those agencies best placed to protect communities from anti-social behaviour. Both the Environment Agency and the Natural Resources Body for Wales play an important role in ensuring that our environment is welcoming to everybody and they should, I believe, be able to lead court action when that enjoyment is put at risk by anti-social individuals. We will continue to work with bodies such as the Environment Agency to ensure they are prepared for the new power and on that basis I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I still do not understand the logic of having the Environment Agency: why not Network Rail, for example? I can think of a lot of national organisations for which it would be possible to make the same argument. The noble Lord said that the Environment Agency had not used this power very frequently. Will he write to tell me how many times it has used it since it got the power? That would be interesting and helpful.

The specific point I was trying to make is that if injunctions are a weapon of first resort then I can understand why the Environment Agency might want to use it against somebody who does something nasty on a bit of land that it owns, or jumps in a river when they should not. However, I thought that the whole basis of the Bill was that injunctions are not to be a weapon of first resort but a weapon of last resort. I asked what resources the Environment Agency would have to carry out preventive work and management of potential injunctees, if that is what they are called—potential respondents. I did not get an answer. I asked what resources the Environment Agency might have to manage the process of positive requirements. Again, I do not think that there is an answer. I think that the Government are making assertions rather than giving explanations on this.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Perhaps I may just explain. The agency currently has the power to issue ASBOs—that exists. If we were to take that power away, as ASBOs disappear, it would have no equivalent power, unless we replace them with a power which we consider to be most appropriate, the IPNA. I hope my noble friend will understand that we ask the Environment Agency, both in this country and in Wales, to do a lot on our behalf to protect the environment. This is a method whereby it can do just that. I would be very surprised if the noble Lord were not in favour of allowing the Environment Agency to have some successor power to its current power to issue ASBOs.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I understand that very well. I understand that the Environment Agency has those powers, but we are told that it hardly uses them, which is why I am asking how widespread their use is, how many it has actually used since it got this power. That is what the argument is. I hope that I will get that information, but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

To respond to the noble Earl, 38 of the 41 police and crime commissioners listed anti-social behaviour as one of their major priorities in their crime plans, so the subject is at the top of the list. Certainly one would hope that as well as dealing with the consequences of anti-social behaviour, that could be converted into preventive action. I beg to ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for trying to withdraw my amendment before I do, but he is a bit too enthusiastic. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, which has been useful. It has shown that there is not quite as much clarity about how the youngest children in particular—10, 11 and 12 year-olds—will be dealt with in the new system. I hope that perhaps the Government might find ways to be clearer about that as the Bill proceeds. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, had to dash back from Argentina. Since she took up her responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench I have admired her contributions to this House. I never quite thought of her as Eva Perón, but perhaps she can sing to us as well—that may be a thrill in store.

The Minister said that the Government are replacing ASBOs, which are a “heavy hammer”, with a more nuanced approach. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, pointed out that they are doing this by sweeping away a whole range of means that perhaps on the face of it ought to provide a more nuanced approach and a greater choice of measures in each case, and replacing it with one. The crux of the matter—whether this injunction will work for young people and for people generally—depends on whether it is sufficiently flexible. The Minister referred to the draft guidance that has been published. For much of the anti-social behaviour parts of the Bill this draft guidance is still very skeletal. The part of this draft guidance that deals with the new injunctions and the way in which they might be the end of a series of actions is one of the better parts, although it can no doubt be further improved.

In particular, as far as these very young people—10 and 11 year-olds—are concerned, it is crucial that the measures and the intervention are there to prevent them ever getting to the juvenile court for an injunction. In my experience of kids in my area who have had ASBOs, once they are given one, for most of them the system has failed. There will be the same sort of thing with the IPNAs. Once kids are hauled up before a system of justice and have these things imposed on them, perhaps without sufficient support to make sure that they adhere to them and do not breach them, for most of them the system has failed at that stage. They are far from being rescued from a life of difficulties and crime—they are rather being set on the road towards it. That is my experience of people in our area. We all hope that this new system will be better for them.

Having said that, I am very grateful for the Minister’s careful comments, which set the Committee off to a good start as far as the anti-social behaviour parts of the Bill are concerned. I ask the Government to think again whether 10 is the right age for this. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I hope that I am never anything but positive. As I made clear at Second Reading, the provisions of the first six parts of the Bill, which deal with anti-social behaviour, are about protecting victims of anti-social behaviour. It was good to hear noble Lords across the House recognising that that is what lies at the heart of what we are trying to achieve here. It ensures that police, local authorities and all those other agencies that are listed in the Bill can, where necessary, take swift action to bring respite to both individual victims and communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is right: the central purpose of the new injunction is to nip problems in the bud and intervene before anti-social behaviour escalates. It is essential for the threshold to be set at the right level for that to happen.

The amendments seek to retain the key features of the anti-social behaviour order that the Government are seeking to replace. I understand the arguments and the concerns that a number of noble Lords have expressed about the test of the new injunction and I have seen the legal opinion given by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, but I am sure it will not be a surprise that I am going to explain why we do not agree with these amendments and why I do not agree with my noble friend.

I fear that the effect of these amendments would be to weaken the effectiveness of the new injunction in providing relief to victims and communities. Amendment 19C seeks to replace the lower, civil standard of proof—on the balance of probabilities—with the higher, criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Amendment 20A seeks to replace the “nuisance or annoyance” test for the IPNA with the anti-social behaviour test of “harassment, alarm or distress”. Finally, Amendment 20D seeks to revert from the requirement that it must be “just and convenient” to grant an IPNA to the test of “necessary and proportionate”.

As I have said, our reforms are about putting victims first. This means giving front-line professionals the right powers to protect victims and communities effectively from anti-social behaviour. The IPNA has been designed as a purely civil power which can be obtained quickly through the courts, to protect the public and stop an individual’s behaviour escalating.

It may interest noble Lords that the test of nuisance or annoyance was introduced in the Housing Act 1996 and subsequently amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 to extend to conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. This test is used for the anti-social behaviour injunction. It is well recognised by the courts; they know it and are familiar with it. They apply it on a daily basis when deciding whether to grant injunctions to stop or prevent anti-social behaviour.

The term is also used in a number of other statutory contexts. For example, in Section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which relates to alcohol consumption in designated public places; in Section 9A of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of proceedings for possession; in Schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 in respect of street trading consents; and in Section 142 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of obstruction of highways. I could go on, but I have already demonstrated, with this list, that “nuisance or annoyance” is a widely used, statutory term that is understood by both front-line professionals and the courts.

It is therefore not surprising that the Law Society fully supports the use of the test in Part 1. Its recent briefing says:

“The Society strongly suggests that the test is retained and that judges are allowed to exercise their discretion and considerable experience in dealing with these matters. The test is already familiar to the courts and other partners working with families and offenders”.

That this is a well established test has been true for some time. When it was being considered in your Lordships’ House in 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—who was then Home Office Minister and is now Opposition Chief Whip, but who is unfortunately not in his place at the moment—made a similar point. He said:

“‘Nuisance or annoyance’ is a well-established legal test which the courts are perfectly comfortable to use”. [Official Report, 23/10/03; col. 1791]

That was true then and it is true now, which is why the Government believe—as the previous Government did—that this is the right test to use. To retain the test that applies for the ASBO, as these amendments seek to do, would increase the evidential burden on front-line professionals who are working hard to protect victims and deter perpetrators. It would hinder them in providing respite to victims and communities more quickly. That this will be the consequence of these amendments has been put clearly in the briefing submitted to your Lordships by the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, which says,

“we consider that these amendments are unnecessary and would, if carried, lead to unintended consequences and seriously disadvantage victims. They would also have significant adverse financial and other resource implications for agencies”.

In relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, to apply the criminal standard of proof, their briefing note goes on to say:

“Raising the burden of proof to beyond reasonable doubt will effectively remove the ability to use professional evidence or hearsay, something which conflicts directly with the core purpose of the Bill, to deliver better outcomes for victims. To do so will make it extremely difficult to prove matters to the criminal standard without the victim giving evidence first-hand”.

These are telling points, which were reinforced by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd of Berwick and Lord Morris of Aberavon. They were also shared by the Chartered Institute of Housing, which also published a briefing note for your Lordships.

The central purpose of this new injunction is to nip problems in the bud and intervene before anti-social behaviour escalates to more serious levels or to criminality. That is in the interests of victims and perpetrators. To wait until these higher tests can be met would stop professionals from taking formal court action where it is necessary and from acting when there is more chance of the perpetrator addressing the underlying causes of their behaviour.

As to fears that injunctions will be handed out like confetti to stop children skateboarding or playing football in the street, or to silence street preachers giving public sermons, I can only quote again from the Law Society, which said:

“The Law Society supports retaining the legal test for the Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance … as currently drafted in the Anti Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill. We do not agree with those who claim the test is too weak and should be strengthened by imposing conditions such as ‘seriousness’ or ‘malice’. Some are worried that the test is too weak and could result in preachers, buskers and even carol singers finding themselves subject to an injunction but the Law Society do not agree with this interpretation”.

Neither do I. The Law Society would not support these provisions if it had concerns that they would or could be used to stop children playing or people exercising their legitimate rights to freedom of assembly or freedom of expression.

I fully share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that these powers are used reasonably and proportionately. Significant safeguards are already provided for in the Bill, not least that an injunction must be authorised by a court. I am ready to consider further whether it would be appropriate to provide in the Bill that the court must consider, in the light of all the relevant circumstances, that it is reasonable to grant an injunction. I therefore urge noble Lords to listen to the Law Society and to the front-line professionals who are telling us, loud and clear, that these amendments are not necessary and would significantly weaken the provisions in the Bill.

If this amendment was made, it would make no difference at all to children doing the normal playful things that children do or to street preachers sermonising on the high street. However, it would make a real and detrimental difference to the victims of anti-social behaviour, who would not get the quick respite they need from those who make their lives a misery. The amendment loses sight of the victims of anti-social behaviour, who should be our first consideration. For that reason I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness does that, will the Minister answer the question that I asked? Do the Government believe that by significantly reducing both the level of the test and the level of proof required, there will be more IPNAs than there are ASBOs at the moment, and if not, why not?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I apologise to my noble friend for not answering his question. I was asked two questions—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also asked one. I was in a hurry because I am aware that we have a busy day. However, I can quote from the published impact assessment:

“The estimated volume of Crime Prevention Injunctions issued is assumed to follow the orders they replace with increase of 5 per cent in comparison with the baseline. It is not thought that there will be a large widening of availability due to the lowering of the threshold of proof, as this is only lower than the ASBO and not the ASBI which forms the majority of estimated applications for the Crime Prevention Injunction”.

I turn to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Positive requirements in the IPNA will help people to address the underlying causes of their anti-social behaviour. We believe that this will reduce breach rates in future.

Public Bodies (Abolition of Environment Protection Advisory Committees) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, in moving the Motion, I shall speak also to the subsequent statutory instrument, to which we may speak if your Lordships wish. The two orders have been considered in conjunction with one another during scrutiny; hence I think it would be most helpful to refer to them together.

The orders are to be made under the Public Bodies Act 2011. They will abolish the six regional and local fisheries advisory committees in England and the six environmental protection advisory committees in England and pave the way for more flexible, non-statutory engagement arrangements that can evolve and respond to the needs and delivery of environmental objectives.

Both sets of committees have provided valuable advice to the Environment Agency, and it will continue to need such advice. I thank all those who have been so engaged. However, we believe that a non-statutory approach to engagement could provide greater flexibility at a more local, catchment-based level. That will enable civil society and local communities to provide advice directly to the Environment Agency and to be involved and empowered to take the lead, where appropriate, on delivering environmental outcomes rather than continue the current focus on just providing advice.

As set out in the explanatory documents, in developing the successor arrangements, each of the Environment Agency’s six operating regions in England has produced an engagement model, with input from existing committees and through discussion with local partners. A broad range of interactions is proposed. The regional engagement models show the relationship between the various fora—from national strategy through to local action and delivery. The models are region-specific and flexible. They will evolve over time, based on continual review by the groups involved against environmental priorities, which may vary one from another. This will ensure that the models for engagement are the right ones, involving the right individuals and groups at the right time. The explanatory documents showcased studies on engagement approaches that are being piloted to ensure that we get the arrangements right in future. We also consulted widely on the future engagement arrangements, as required by the Act, and we have reported on the consultation.

In its consideration of the orders, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded in its fourth report of the 2012-13 Session that it was content to clear these draft public bodies orders within the 40-day affirmative procedure. However, it had two recommendations. The first suggested that,

“the Government re-consider the need for formal monitoring and evaluation of the successor arrangements which are put in place to enable interested parties to be engaged in the delivery of the Environment Agency’s objectives”.

I assure the Committee that my department and the Environment Agency have agreed a formal review of successor arrangements within two years of the committees being abolished. Ahead of that review, the Environment Agency will undertake stakeholder engagement to allow local, regional and national customers and stakeholders to comment on how the engagement approaches, as described in the regional models, have been embedded. Based on the views of stakeholders and customers, the focus of the review will be to ensure that the right engagement happens in the right place to achieve this local, regional and national buy-in, while adapting to local needs and priorities. The review will be an important reassurance that the regional models reflect the needs of stakeholders and customers in delivering environmental outcomes.

The second recommendation suggested that,

“without delay after abolition of the … Committees, Government and the Environment Agency put in place, and publicise, regular meetings with key regional stakeholders to strengthen the process of monitoring and evaluation”.

The scrutiny committee was concerned that, if approved, the orders would remove a statutory obligation on the agency to carry out consultation.

The Environment Agency’s remit, as set out in the management statement and statutory Section 4 guidance, published in accordance with the Environment Act 1995, makes it clear that the Environment Agency must work closely with a wide range of partners in the public, local community, private and civil society sectors. The statutory guidance and remit provide a clear requirement to engage and consult widely, which the Environment Agency already delivers on a regional level through, for example, the river basin liaison panels, local enterprise partnerships and various fishery forums.

With regard to publicising meetings and events with key stakeholders, the Environment Agency has developed and made good use of social media. It is anticipated that social media, along with traditional forms of communication, will be extensively used to advertise meetings and events linked to local engagement models.

I hope that noble Lords can see that we are ready for change. The committees have made a valuable contribution but we believe that the proposed arrangements will provide more flexible local, community and civil society engagement for both advice and delivery, and that this approach will have the ability to evolve to meet the challenges ahead. I commend the draft orders to the House.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the orders stem from the proposals in the Public Bodies Act, on which we had some extensive and interesting discussions— coincidentally, with the same Minister, and he did a sterling job on that Bill. We are now discussing just two groups of bodies: the regional and local fisheries advisory committees and the environment protection advisory committees.

The first thing that I can say may be considered to be a typical niggle coming from me, but I find some of the language used in these reports a bit over the top and I wonder what it all means. I think that I know what it means, because I look at the detail, but I still do not like the language. For example, page 4 of the explanatory document for the environment protection advisory committees order—the same language is used in the other one, too—states:

“Localism and Big Society agendas require the Environment Agency to more directly engage with civil society, the public and business. A non-statutory approach would provide greater flexibility”—

I understand that—

“and remove statutory constraints which would enable civil society and local communities to be empowered to take the lead where appropriate”.

I have to say that I find this language difficult to understand. I would be interested if somebody had to write an examination answer on what it means. I have spent a great deal of time, including struggling with the 450 pages of the Localism Bill, trying to understand what localism and the big society agendas really are and I am still struggling. I understand a lot of the detailed stuff which comes out allegedly as part of these agendas, but what it all means as an overall strategy is still a mystery hidden in the fogs of some of the upper echelons of the Government. However, the details here are much easier to understand.

We welcome the increased emphasis on catchment areas, which have always been difficult for public authorities to deal with, because they very rarely coincide with administrative and local authority boundaries. They are difficult to deal with, but, if you are dealing with flooding, the catchments are the most important of all.

The documents make it clear that the measures are not a matter of saving money or part of the cuts, and that the amounts being saved will come from, for example, the salaries of chairs of the bodies. I understand that existing staff resources will be redeployed to make sure the new non-statutory, flexible arrangements are fit for particular purposes. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that that is the case and that this is not a cost-cutting exercise? Page 7 of the first of the explanatory documents states:

“There are no overall savings from the abolition in economic terms”.

It then states that,

“it is expected that there will be a zero net cost /benefit associated with abolition”.

I am not quite sure why it says that, because I thought that cost/benefit analyses took into account non-economic terms as well, but never mind: if it is not a cost-saving measure and a matter of doing things better, that is okay.

The Minister referred to the recommendations of the scrutiny committee. I was not sure whether he was saying that the two-year review will take place. Perhaps he can clarify that or whether other arrangements will be made to make sure that monitoring and reviewing take place. On the recommendation that there should be regular meetings with the “key regional stakeholders”—I say that biting my tongue and making the words come out of my mouth—was the Minister saying that those meetings will take place or that they are not necessary because they will form part of the new arrangements anyway?

Finally, the Minister said that they will make use of social media. I think I know what social media are, but I am not sure that everyone tweeting each other all the time is the way to do this. Is he talking about more conventional websites and forums, rather than the frantic arrangements that one finds on things such as Twitter and Facebook, which seem to me not the media that should be used in this context? Perhaps I am out of date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I certainly agree that if you need to get information out very rapidly, media such as Twitter are helpful, but in an emergency, cell broadcasting is the most effective because you can get to every mobile phone within a cell area. I think that the Environment Agency is looking at how that might be used.

I was going on to address the other point made about more sustained, ongoing stakeholder engagement. It is notable to look at how the really large commercial interests, the large retailers, are using Facebook, for example, to create massive communities of people around Facebook pages, particularly in the United States. Twitter is as good as the people you want to follow. If you choose to follow people who post only dross, you will get a lot of dross, but if you choose to unfollow the dross, you will get what you want. It is entirely up to you.

Without being distracted by the use of social media in these things, the more serious issue is to try to understand a little more from the Minister about how it might work. Will the money be spent on apps, webinars and tweet-meets? In particular, what proportion and how much will be spent on staff against this difficult fiscal environment and the pressure to reduce staffing costs? Will Defra monitor the staffing arrangements to ensure that there are enough people on the ground? Here, I might have common cause with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We cannot solely rely on technology because some people find it difficult to engage with technology or, surprising as it may seem, do not even want to. Often, the technology can create the noise and the interest, and bring people together, but you still need people on the ground to engage with people and with that technology.

If the Minister can give me some answers about how the review would work and how this money will be reinvested, I will be delighted. Suffice to say that I do not want to oppose the orders. I am happy to let a more catchment-based and more community-based approach operate and see how it is reviewed.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, again, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for the welcome that they have given these two draft orders. I think that there is an understanding that this represents a new way of working and doing things better. It is not about saving money; it is about engagement and providing the opportunity for fuller participation. If my noble friend Lord Greaves found the section on civil and big society vexing in its use of language, I recommend to noble Lords that they read the Explanatory Memorandum. Although it has a rather stiff and starchy front, which they all have, when you get into it, it is full of useful recommendations.

[Lord Greaves]

I have read it.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I know that my noble friend clearly got beyond page 4 and got well into the subject, as I would have expected him to have done. It is a very useful document, which gives a lot of illustrations which will help to reassure noble Lords about what is involved. It is about getting people involved and facilitating engagement.

It also is about a new way of working on catchment areas. I saw a map of European catchment areas the other day and it is remarkable how catchments for the United Kingdom are so much more appropriate because we have such a variety of river basins, whereas some larger countries in Europe, such as Germany, have relatively few but substantial rivers. We have a large number of rivers and it is quite right that we deal with them on the basis of catchments.

I can reassure noble Lords that there will be a review after two years. We will review progress jointly with the Environment Agency against the high-level principles. Ahead of the review, we will engage with stakeholders to allow them and local and national customers to comment on how everything has gone. Through that process, we hope to inform the Environment Agency how the policy is going forward.

There was a certain amount of jesting about social media. I probably come half way between the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and my noble friend Lord Greaves. I am certainly less familiar than the noble Lord with Twitter and such things. The Explanatory Memorandum contains examples of how social media are already being used. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to pages 42 to 45 for examples of what has already been developed. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned the engagement that has already occurred in the north-west. At yorkshirefishing.net, anglers had a two-hour online question-and-answer session with the Environment Agency’s fisheries and biodiversity team. Those are the sort of things which I see justifying the use of social media as means of engagement. I think that all noble Lords will recognise that, over time, their use will become much more customary and a part of the formal pattern of things.

My noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, wanted to examine where the money would be used. No savings are being made here, but some money will be able to be redirected. That will be used to support the new England and Wales Fisheries Group. This group will monitor further changes needed for the regional models to be able to engage the right people at the right time. The money will go back into the kitty. It is anticipated that some further resources may be needed to support engagement. For example, the Environment Agency in the south-west has committed funding to provide a local angling development board and an angling development officer. Those are useful examples of the recreational opportunities which such engagement will provide.

I hope that the further reassurances that I have given will ease the way towards the next and final stage of the process, which started some 21 months ago. To this end, I commend the two orders to the Committee.

Designation of Features (Appeals) (England) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, the regulations are required to be made prior to the commencement of the substantive designation provisions under Section 30 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

The purpose of the appeal regulations is twofold. First, they will provide a safeguard for individuals whose property is affected by designation decisions and, secondly, they will ensure that risk management authorities are accountable for their decisions and will be open to transparent, legitimate challenge from individuals about their actions. These appeal regulations provide the owners of designated assets with the right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the initial designation of a structure or feature, as well as against subsequent decisions relating to applications to alter, remove or replace a designated feature or to cancel a designation. A right of appeal is also provided against the issue of an enforcement notice for contravening a designation.

The appeal regulations provide that the First-tier Tribunal will hear all appeals under Schedule 1. In order to maintain the credibility of the Act and the efficacy of the designation regime, it is important that the appeals mechanism is independent, efficient and comprehensive, and is a fair and cost-effective way of adjudicating any disputes. The process for bringing an appeal is governed both by these regulations and by the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

Perhaps I can explain the nature of the provisions. Physical defences, such as walls, embankments and natural features, are relied upon to deliver much of our flood and coastal erosion risk management. Whole communities often rely on these features and base their flood protection strategies on the assumption that they will remain in place and divert water. However, in the 2007 floods it was discovered—too late—that there were alterations to some of these third party assets and flooding resulted, for example in Sheffield and Chesterfield.

In the Flood Water Management Act 2010, provision has been made in Section 30 and Schedule 1 to allow the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards to designate third party structures or features which affect flood or coastal erosion risk. Designation requires the owner to seek consent from the appropriate risk management authority before altering, removing or replacing the structure or feature.

These provisions are required to prevent uncontrolled damage or removal of structures or natural or manmade features of the environment that perform a flood or coastal erosion risk management function. Further details on the designation process, including appeals, can be found in the public information leaflet and the guidance document produced by Defra and laid for information with these appeal regulations.

The requirement to provide a right of appeal by way of these regulations is contained in paragraph 15 of Schedule 1. Section 30 and Schedule 1 were commenced in April last year in so far as they provide the power to make the regulations. The substantive provisions relating to the regime for the designation of structures or features cannot be implemented without the appeals regulations. The designation regime provides protection for and restrictions on private assets in the public interest. The appeals regulations provide protection for private rights affected by designation and it is a necessary balance that they do so. These appeal regulations are a necessary and appropriate statutory obligation. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Grand Committee.

[Lord Greaves]

I do not have a great deal to say about this on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The regulations, which the Minister has explained very well, come from the Flood and Water Management Act. I suppose this little gathering today allows a certain amount of nostalgia from some of us who were involved in the passage of that Act, as often happens with these orders. These are sensible and welcome provisions. Does this mean that the designation of features can now go ahead or is there anything else standing in the way before this process takes place? As the Minister said, it is a process that was found lacking as a result of the experience in 2007. It is welcome that the recommendation from Sir Michael Pitt’s mammoth report is now filtering its way—if that is the right word to use in connection with water—down the system and that we are now on the point of approving these regulations, which we certainly support.

Environment: Cockle Beds

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their approach to tackling problems resulting from illegal fishing on the cockle beds of the Ribble estuary.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, the management of local fisheries, including cockling on the Ribble estuary, has been devolved to the North Western Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority and, as such, the conservation authority leads in managing the situation in co-operation with all interested parties, including enforcement agencies. In the light of recent events, North Western IFCA has closed the cockle fisheries for safety reasons. It is now a criminal offence to take or remove cockles in the Ribble, and the Government welcome and support this action.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, it is nearly 800 years since Magna Carta gave people the right to pick cockles from the shores of England. However, is it not now time that there was a better regime, in view of the chaos when the cockle beds were recently opened in the Ribble estuary near Lytham St Annes? Hundreds of people converged on the cockle beds, dozens had to be rescued and there was general chaos—and it was discovered that many people did not have permits. What will the Government do to help IFCA and other local agencies to protect the interests of the legitimate fishermen in that area who pick cockles so that they have a safe, reliable and environmentally sustainable business, which is being put at risk by what is going on?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As my noble friend will know, the situation is that North Western IFCA took the decision, in the light of the safety requirements, to protect lives. The Morecambe fishery is closed; the Ribble estuary fishery has just been reopened; and the price of cockles, at £700 a tonne, has encouraged a lot of people who do not have permits to go cockling. However, IFCA recognises the effect that the by-law will have on legitimate fishermen and is urgently looking into possible management measures that it could introduce to ensure a safe fishery and to operate it as soon as possible. The Government support IFCA in this endeavour.

Rural Payments Agency

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I am afraid that, as a departmental Minister, the room for flexibility is perhaps not as great as it was, but I shall do my best. We have been building alliances within the European community on CAP reform. I think many other countries will be just as disappointed as we are with what appears to be a very retrograde and regressive proposal from the Commission at this stage. Our job is to negotiate, as the noble Lord rightly said, to try to build alliances and to place not just the farmer or the countryside but even the consumer interest at the fore. That is certainly our position. That is what we intend to do, and I hope we have the support of the whole House in achieving that.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Taylor on his accession to the portfolio which he dealt with in opposition with such competence and in his usual friendly manner. I look forward to him holding this job for quite a long time because he will do a very good one.

Because of other things going on this morning, I have not had a chance to look in detail at the proposals from the Commission, but does the Minister agree that it is very important to prevent the opinions and forces in this country that would like to abolish the common agricultural policy and the payments altogether? They are not the way forward. Without a reasonable level of support to British farmers, combined with the cross-compliance conditions on the environment and animal welfare and the Pillar 2 schemes, such as the environmental stewardship schemes, the British countryside would be a much worse place.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Undoubtedly my noble friend is absolutely right. That is the purpose of our discussions, that is what our focus will be in negotiations, and that is why we are going into the negotiations in a positive frame of mind: to try to achieve the changes to the CAP which we think are in the interests of the people of this country.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Perhaps I might respond because otherwise we will prolong a discussion about something that is not particularly apposite to this group of amendments. I believe that all sides of the Committee have faith in liberal market economies, and one of the effects of liberal market economies is that consumers tend to make their own choices. My noble friend Lady Byford pointed that out. I am really rather sorry that my noble friend Lord True is slightly less enamoured with the market, but I would say to noble Lords that retailing is a highly competitive business. Any noble Lord who has been engaged with retailing in any way will know just how competitive it can be. Indeed, it is changing all the time. The latest development in the area from which I come is not a shop but a shed, where people go to collect their orders that they have placed online.

I am sorry, but we live in rapidly changing times. It is a great challenge to local communities and a great challenge to those who are trusted by election to run local authorities, but the Bill is designed to give local authorities power to set the framework in which I suspect noble Lords will all accept that the market has to operate. I hope that it is possible for noble Lords not to press their amendments at this stage.

[Lord Greaves]

I shall certainly not move my amendment when I come to it, but I want to make a slightly different point. My amendment does not in any way suggest that there should not be supermarkets of any size. It suggests that in any particular place there should be an appropriate balance which ought to be determined by local people in the normal processes of discussion and so on. It may well be that it is unreasonable to keep out a small supermarket from a shopping street. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to prevent that shopping street being turned over to three or four such shops, or two or three such shops, which then drive the others out—that is not a matter of competition, it is anti-competition, because it is driving out the people who cannot compete at that level. Obviously, we all agree with the market, but I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord True—the Government need to think a bit more about this.

It is absolutely true that it is a very difficult world out there for retailers, but shopping centres, high streets and town centres can, to a degree, make their own fortune. If there is sufficient campaigning desire locally, as there is at Mill Road in Cambridge, that must in itself be a plus factor in keeping that shopping street going as a diverse street. I will refer yet again to my own town of Colne where, over decades, there have been active groups of local councillors, traders, residents, historians and others interested in the town centre who have formed organisations, campaigned and actually rolled up their sleeves and done things to make Colne an attractive place to be. If you have a shopping centre and a high street which is attractive and somewhere local people are proud of, that gives the traders, who are all part of this, a head start. There are a great many towns the same size as Colne across the north of England which have something like 30 per cent or 40 per cent of their properties boarded up and empty now. I dare not say that Colne is thriving, because every time I say that, the local people—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

May I remind noble Lords that I have responded on behalf of the Government to these amendments and I believe that the noble Lord is reiterating arguments which have been very well laid before the Committee already. We want to get through quite a lot of business and I hope that my noble friend will appreciate my interruption—I hope that I have not annoyed him to the point at which he will press his amendment. Perhaps he will wind up.

[Lord Greaves]

I shall say one more thing. I apologise if I am going on too long. I invite the noble Lord, who is into flowers, to come to Colne and look at all the flowers in Colne now, done by the wonderful organisation Colne in Bloom as part of the Britain in Bloom system. He would be proud of it and it is the kind of thing that keeps people in the town and encourages people to shop there. I invite him to come to Colne; he would be proud of all the flowers there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing these amendments. I understand his purpose, but we are not minded to accept them. We are concerned particularly about the first two amendments, Amendments 148ZZZZBB and 148ZZZZBC, because they would reintroduce regulatory bureaucracy by restricting councils from making small text edits, such as correcting mistakes, page numbers and notation, before adopting their development plan documents. We do not see that that can possibly be justified.

If noble Lords are concerned that councils are being given powers to adopt or change policies without proper public debate, I reassure them that this is not the case. The Bill makes sure that councillors can adopt plans only when they are considered suitable by the inspector. We trust councillors to prepare plans that reflect local needs and bring forward sustainable economic growth.

Amendment 148ZZZZBD seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s existing powers to direct withdrawal of a council’s local plans during examination. We disagree with my noble friend on this issue, and we think that this is bottom-up. We have introduced Clause 97(5) to retain the existing backstop power in exceptional circumstances only, alongside our proposals in Clause 97(4), which will allow councils to withdraw their plans at any time before adoption. We believe that that is the right approach.

Amendments 148ZZZZBE, 148ZZZZBF and 148ZZZZBG collectively seek to remove sections from the 2004 planning Act that allow the Secretary of State to intervene in the preparation of local plans. These are existing long-standing measures that have not been used by this Government. In a practical sense, the powers are simply existing safeguards, which a future Government may consider it appropriate to use in the highly exceptional circumstance when a council is unwilling or unable to develop plans for their area. It acts as a useful reminder for local communities that their own councils should plan properly on their behalf and that they can hold them to account. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. I did not think I would get anywhere, but it is still very disappointing. The Minister said that the Government trust local councils to produce plans that will produce sustainable development, and so on. The truth of the matter is that no Government nowadays trust local councils at all unless they do what the Government or the inspector want, or follow the detailed rules and regulations. It is a very sad state of affairs, but it is clearly going to continue for some time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, what I am describing is exactly the vehicle through which power is exercised—the duty to co-operate and the construction of local plans. That is exactly what we are engaged in. The interface between the LEP and this process is important. We may have accidentally entered into something that elaborates, I hope, on the force of the Government’s argument in this area. My noble friend Lord Cotter was a little concerned that the membership of the boards of LEPs was perhaps not fully representative. We are not telling LEPs who they should put on their boards, but we expect board members to be drawn from a breadth of experience—from small enterprises through to large businesses and representing key sectors in their areas. My experience of the LEP that covers my area seems to bear this out through the individuals who have got involved and engaged with it.

It is appreciated that the aim of the amendments in this group is to ensure effective co-operation on local economic development issues. We share that objective but believe that it is better to give LEPs the space to innovate, rather than to impose a national statutory model on them. Effective co-operation on economic development issues can be achieved through an enabling power, which requires bodies that are subject to the duty to have regard to the activities of other bodies when preparing their local plans and related activities. We intend to prescribe local enterprise partnerships, which will represent local business interests in local planning regulations, for this purpose. We have placed the draft regulations in the House Library and will consult on them later this month. The approach that we are taking will support growth and strengthen local economic co-operation under the duty, but it will leave LEPs the freedom to innovate and work flexibly.

[Lord Greaves]

I hear what my noble friend says with interest. First, will he reflect on having just described LEPs as representing business interests? Surely the whole purpose of LEPs is that they are a partnership between business and local authorities, and therefore represent both those interests, not just one of them. Secondly, could he explain how merely putting a duty on LEPs to co-operate and promote co-operation amounts to a rigid national statutory framework?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sorry if I misled the Committee. I am well aware that LEPs are joint bodies, representing the interests of local government and business. I think that is what I described earlier. If the syntax of what I just said implied that that was not the case, I withdraw that. However, I think I said that we intend to prescribe local enterprise partnerships, which will represent local business interests in local planning regulations for this purpose. My point is that they represent business interests as well as community interests.

There are several amendments that I would loosely describe under the heading “Engagement under the duty to co-operate”. They include Amendments 147J, 147K, 147HP, 147HQ and 147JA. They seek to strengthen the engagement required under the duty to co-operate by requiring actions, rather than giving councils and bodies the flexibility to consider whether to undertake these actions. I refer again to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. The key point is that strategic planning needs to be flexible to allow councils to decide how to co-operate effectively. This will depend on the issues that they face. As I have already described and as the noble Lord himself said, flood and water management requires a totally different combination of interests from, say, highways or housing policy, which are founded in different ways. That is the great advantage of this structure. Prescribing a specific outcome, such as a joint infrastructure assessment, would not allow for the flexibility that is needed to make this an effective vehicle.

Moving on, Amendments 147L and 147M address similar concerns about engagement. They seek to establish a specific document—a joint strategic infrastructure assessment—to be produced as evidence of effective engagement under the duty. Amendment 147HF addresses similar joint infrastructure planning guidance, which it implies should be included in the activities to which the duty applies. It sets specific requirements in terms of the purpose and content of these documents. The amendment seeks the involvement of councils that are part of a local enterprise partnership and requires that the objective of the bodies preparing these documents should be the achievement of sustainable development.

We share the objective of having a duty to co-operate that will ensure effective co-operation by councils and other bodies. However, strategic planning is not a one-size-fits-all approach. It needs to be a flexible process led by councils that allows them to respond to particular issues and local circumstances. Flexibility is essential to allow them to decide how best to work to serve their local communities, businesses and interested parties. We agree that strategic infrastructure plays a critical role in supporting the delivery of economic growth and housing, and that is why we have included it in the Bill.

Clause 95 requires councils to consider whether to work jointly on policies and activities related to strategic cross-boundary and county issues. It gives local planning authorities and county councils flexibility on how to fulfil this responsibility, rather than forcing them to produce specific documents. That strikes the right balance by ensuring that co-operation will result in effective local plans and by strengthening accountability to local communities, businesses and interested parties.

Councils that are part of a local enterprise partnership will already be subject to the duty to co-operate, and there is no need to refer to them separately. I have received assistance for the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the functions of LEPs. We do not want to be precise on their roles or functions. They should follow local priorities that they and their communities consider important. We want LEPs to leave development proposals to local enterprise. That is their task and their role. They are not public bodies and are not reliant on grant funding, but they provide a forum and an agency to start up funding, if that is part and parcel of the proposals. LEPs are therefore facilitators rather than providers, if I may describe them in that way.

Amendment 147J would also remove the requirement on councils and other bodies to consult on agreements on joint working approaches. However, we believe that this is an important element of co-operation in local planning that will allow all the relevant parties to suggest the most effective ways of working.

A number of amendments in the group seek to describe strategic matters, and would delete the reference to sustainable development and focus on development that impacts on at least two planning areas and projects forming part of a strategic network. Amendment 147HM focuses on development needs that cannot be accommodated within one planning area and the development of potential strategic importance. One might say that the issue of the housing requirements of Stevenage that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, brought to our attention is relevant.

It is appreciated that there are many ways in which strategic matters could be defined for the purpose of the duty to co-operate. We recognise that the concern behind these amendments is to ensure that the duty effectively captures strategic matters that affect more than one authority. We share this concern but believe that the duty should capture strategic matters in a way that is flexible and allows councils to respond to particular local circumstances. We wish to retain the reference to sustainable development because of the importance that we attach to it, as I highlighted earlier.

Some concern was expressed about statutory guidance. Amendment 147N deletes the requirement on councils and other bodies to have regard to any guidance that the Secretary of State may issue about how the duty to co-operate should be complied with. Such guidance, should the Secretary of State decide that it is necessary, will be important in helping councils and other bodies to understand how to discharge their responsibilities under the duty to co-operate. It will therefore be important that they have regard to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I will certainly do that.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the great care that he has taken in responding to these amendments. We might get on a bit quicker on one or two of them if the people providing him with his briefings understood that, often in Committee in this House, we put down “leave out” amendments in order to find out what things mean and how they will work, rather than delete them. We are not actually always trying to get rid of them. I realise that sometimes they have to guess which it is, but that is the case.

There is a difference of approach. Some of us would like to have a much clearer high-level duty placed on local authorities and other bodies and far less detailed regulations on how to do it. Some of us would like to rely on that, rather than have a weaker duty and then masses of detailed regulations. The duty to co-operate is a classic case of that. On the central issue of whether the duty in this part of the Bill is as strong as it needs to be, some further discussion will be required before we are finished with the Bill. There is a feeling in quite a bit of the Committee that perhaps it would be a good thing if we could find ways of strengthening the duty a bit further without resulting in even more reams of detailed rules and regulations. I hope that the Minister would be open to discussion of that, in so far as we are able to have discussions over the summer.

On that basis, I thank the Minister and everybody who took part in this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 147FJ.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

I stand reprimanded by the noble Lord. All this excitement obviously took place in a period when I could not be in the House. I still think what I thought at the time—that the best way to scrutinise detailed documents such as this is to have a Select Committee-type scrutiny process. If that could be combined with the exciting dénouement debate in the House that the noble Lord spoke about, that would perhaps be the best solution.

This will be a very important, overriding and high-level document. I am starting to use American management jargon: next I shall start talking about deep-diving into the detail and that sort of rubbish, but never mind. One of the great things about these Committees is that we veer from talking about high-level things to debating how they will affect a particular group of allotments or whatever.

My second point is a question to the Government. What is the timetable—perhaps I have missed this—for the phasing out of planning policy statements and the phasing in of the NPPF? Local authorities are in some sort of limbo as regards planning policy statements and planning policy guidance. They still employ people to make sure that their local development documents are in accord with them, but they are not sure to what extent they are wasting their time, or whether it is useful work as guidance for what they are doing. At what stage will there be a changeover? Will the planning policy statement suddenly cease to have any validity when the new system comes in? When that happens, what will local planning authorities do with the work they are doing? Will they have to start again from scratch if they are half way through developing their core strategy in order to make sure that it accords with the new national policy planning framework, as opposed to all the documents that they have been working on until now? Many local planning authorities are in limbo. They are not sure what is going to happen and could do with advice on what to do.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate, which has reinforced our previous debate and put the NPPF at the heart of it. In its absence, we can but note its significance and importance in relation to the Bill. I will start by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that the Government plan a full public consultation on the document—it will not be just for Parliament to debate the matter—and will follow established best practice for consultations. We have already sought a variety of consultations in formulating the NPPF, including with community groups.

Bearing in mind the interest of noble Lords in this matter, I will ask that as soon as it is published copies will be made available to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I appreciate that there may be an interval before we in the House are able to debate this. That is a matter for the House authorities, not for the Government. However, it is an important part of the discussion of this document.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, perhaps it would help if I reiterate what I said before. There is no conflict here. It is possible to inform the review on the evidence provided by the regional strategies and to form the new plans on that basis. Indeed, elements from the regional strategy can be included in them, as I have made clear. It is important to see this as an evolutionary change. We believe that the drivers to get local authorities to address this issue need to make it quite clear that local authorities are responsible for it.

The noble Baroness rather oversimplified what localism means in the sense that it would release the burden on local authorities. It will not; in many ways it will increase the responsibilities that local authorities will have in forming their own destiny and their own policies. It is an oversimplification to say that this Bill is about relieving the burdens; it is about delivering a much more community-led planning policy. That is why the Government are very keen to make sure that it comes into effect as quickly as possible.

I cannot answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, unless it is on the piece of paper that I have just been given. It says that revoking the eight regional strategies will be by commencement order as soon as practical after Royal Assent.

[Lord Greaves]

The Minister said, about amending the local development frameworks or documents, that authorities should get on and do it quickly. Does he have any understanding of how long it actually takes to do these things, even for an efficient authority? Can he give us an estimate of the delay that that will take in a typical authority?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

When I made my introduction to the Government’s position on this, I hope that I made it quite clear that we go back to May of last year for indications of what the Government would require of local authorities in this respect. I cannot believe that local authorities have been sitting there, waiting for this to happen. I believe that local authorities are sufficiently on top of the job to know what they are required to do to make their local plan that much more relevant to their community. I believe that they feel liberated because of that and I think that most of them will eventually set about that process. Indeed, many of them will already be well down the road.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Indeed I can confirm that, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, because both he and my noble friend Lord Cathcart asked me about it. I will repeat what I said: councillors may call for a referendum, but it will go ahead only if the full council decides that it should. However, the points raised by my noble friends Lord Tope and Lord True need some consideration. The Bill makes no reference to a political party. It does not even talk about controlling councils or membership of groups because that is not the principle on which this piece of drafting was done, and indeed my noble friend Lord True will understand that sometimes it is difficult to provide definitions in legislation. I have explained that our building block is the ward system.

We are going to go on to talk about neighbourhood planning in the future, and it will be useful to consider this debate in the light of that. Meanwhile, we will consider the point made about the risks that could be involved. However, my noble friend Lord Cathcart has kindly given me an opportunity to explain that the whole council has to approve whether a referendum at the bid of an individual councillor or group of councillors should go ahead.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this short debate and for what the Minister has said. While the question of a council being able to call a referendum under these provisions seems unnecessary and more in the way of detailed prescription, I understand that it is not a significant issue. The one significant issue that has come out of the debate is the question of whether individual members should be able to call referendums in their own wards. I just want to take the Committee through what the Bill says.

Clause 45 is about a request for a referendum by members. It says that a request complies with this section if a member for a ward—or, if it is a multi-member ward, a majority of members for that ward or division—asks for that referendum. That is subject to Clause 46(2):

“The principal local authority must determine whether it is appropriate to hold a local referendum in response to the petition or request”.

That is the point that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, made. But Clause 47, which we will come onto in some detail in the later group, clearly says in subsection (1):

“A principal local authority may only determine that it is not appropriate to hold a local referendum in response to a petition or request”—

and that request is a member request—

“on one or more of the following grounds”.

The way in which the local authority, the council, treats a member request as far as grounds for determination—that is, deciding whether it can go ahead—is exactly the same as if a petition is received. We will discuss some of the stuff in Clause 47 a little later but the point is that, if it complies, the council does not have any discretion. It still has to make a formal decision but that decision is whether it complies. If it does, the referendum goes ahead. In an absolute way, the case made by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, is not what it says in the Bill. If I am wrong, this is a crucial issue that needs to be settled and sorted out.

On that basis, and the basis that more discussion has to take place about member-requested referendums, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I think that I can respond positively. I say to my noble friend and namesake that I do not know how big Goss Moor is, but Holbeach has a population of some 8,500 people in one parish. Some parishes are remarkably large and other parishes are remarkably small, so it is very difficult. One size, or system, fitting all is very difficult. There are provisions, of course, for a local referendum, or parish poll, under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, has referred.

The amendment would include parishes in the definition of a “relevant area” as that applies to a principal local authority. We do not think that this is appropriate, particularly because we are looking at how we might look at referendums at parish level in legislation within the Bill and as a result of a consultative process, as I said before. Indeed, I mentioned to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that I foresaw his organisation being very much involved in this consultative process.

Our approach to local referendums is to enable referendums on local matters at the relevant council area, but for the issue at hand. If it is a district council matter, or a matter over which the district council has influence, the referendum can be held at the district council level, whether it be across one or more wards of the district, or the entire area of the district council, but it is the district council that is the triggering authority for this poll, other than having a parish poll. If it is a parish matter, we believe that a parish poll is the most appropriate method. We will discuss our intended approach to parish council referendums later, and I can assure noble Lords that the parish sector will be fully catered for. We want to see a modernised and proportionate local referendums regime for parishes, on which we will fully consult. I hope, therefore, that with these assurances my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My difficulty is that I do not know what that regime might be, or even what the Government are talking about. Whether the Minister will give a little more information when we touch briefly on Clause 56 later, I do not know, but I will not talk about that now.

Let me just give one example. In the parish of Laneshaw Bridge, which is in Pendle in the ward of Boulsworth, a huge issue that has split the village is the question of whether the village school should be very considerably expanded to take in a much larger area than the village. The village was split. Nobody knows what the majority opinion in the village is; what we know is that there were campaigning groups on both sides. Yet a referendum within Boulsworth ward relating to that issue—which would be a classic and typical example of a referendum—would be irrelevant, because the village is only one fifth or so of the entire ward. The rest of the ward consists of another much larger village, another couple of larger villages in a different parish, in which I live, and part of the town of Colne. Having the referendum in that arbitrary area would be irrelevant to knowing what the people of Laneshaw Bridge think.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I beg the noble Lord’s pardon: that is right. I withdraw my last remarks and accept the noble Lord’s amendments to my comments. However, whatever we have in the regulatory framework, the key thing is that the minimum should be prescribed and that whatever is prescribed should be done in conjunction with the Local Government Association and subject to affirmative resolution.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that the Government are inclined, as I indicated, to accept the concept of affirmative resolution for the regulations. I can also say that the inclination of the Government is for a light touch in this area. We have already seen that there are tensions between a rigorous procedure for the collection of names and the necessary legal restrictions placed on the conduct of elections. The difference between the two is that a referendum is not mandatory, it merely advises a local authority and it is therefore not unreasonable to say that it may be covered by a lighter touch than an election whose outcome is definitive, where the problems to which noble Lords have referred apply. I have spent a lifetime in active party politics, and I know how important it is to try to create a proper framework. I was grateful to both my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for pointing out the problems that could arise if we tried to set up regulations that criminalised activities in collecting petition names, and the like.

Amendment 129E creates a criminal offence, and Amendment 129C broadens the Secretary of State’s regulating powers to allow the regulations to provide for referendum results to be questioned in court. The creation of criminal offences is simply unnecessary for a regime that is, effectively, non-binding.

One problem that the coalition is trying to deal with is the profusion of unnecessary criminal offences on the statute book. I suggest that the incurring of expenditure to pay someone to campaign to collect signatures falls well below the hurdle that needs to be cleared before persons should be at risk of receiving a criminal record.

I have not examined the situation fully, but my first impression was that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, might well be right, because the reason why it is possible to pay people to work in elections is that their fees are part of the election expenses. It could create problems if they were also involved in a referendum.

Amendment 129B expands the scope of the Secretary of State's power to make regulations on the conduct of referendums to include regulations about the limitation of expenditure in connection with a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right about what the Bill states on that. We will be discussing the wider issues about publicity arrangements for referendums in a later group.

Clause 46(6)(b) distinguishes between the procedural regulations that may be made in respect of local referendums which are not binding and those which may be made in respect of binding referendums, such as whether to have an elected mayor. We intend that local referendums should be more light touch, given their non-binding nature. The intention behind the amendments may be to limit restrictions on authorities in connection with the question. In fact, the equivalent provision in regulations for binding referendums is used to impose spending limits on petition organisers and those opposing petitions, and they are invariably accompanied by criminal offences for breaching spending limits. We are not convinced that such requirements are necessary for this scheme of non-binding referendums.

We will discuss publication arrangements in a later group and our intentions on that issue. In the mean time, Amendment 129E, which, in hindsight may have been better grouped with Amendment 129D, seems to have little practical effect. It would remove the words “of the referendum” from Clause 55(8). These words may be considered unnecessary but they do not cause any harm and to a small degree remove any doubt that may exist. I cannot say that I am convinced that it is worth making the amendment.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would insert a statutory requirement to consult the Local Government Association in making regulations about voting in, and the conduct of, local referendums. The Electoral Commission is expressly included in the Bill as it is standard practice in all such electoral matters. I neglected to say in reply to the previous debate that we are consulting the Electoral Commission. However, I can assure noble Lords that we intend to consult widely before making regulations, which will include local government associations. I hope that noble Lords will see these non-binding referenda becoming a very different category from ordinary electoral law and I hope that with these assurances, my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

Before my noble friend decides whether or not to divide the House, I should say that these are extremely important matters and we do not believe that the Government have given them the importance that they merit. Whether we like it or not they are all about the possibility for graft and corruption—perhaps not at the same level as for an election itself, but nevertheless graft and corruption over an important matter. If they are not important matters, why are we spending all this money having these referendums?

I just want to make two very brief points. First, within electoral law for elections there is a clear and well understood distinction between paying canvassers and paying people for doing other things, such as delivering leaflets, manning committee rooms, or whatever. You can pay helpers in elections but you are not allowed to pay canvassers. There is a growing area between the two but the distinction is well understood and by and large adhered to.

My second point, which is more fundamental, is the point I made about joint campaigns. It is inconceivable that there will not be joint campaigns of trying to get someone to vote for or against a referendum and an election campaign at the same time, with joint literature, posters and other things that money is spent on. Unless the regulations referring to the referendum are similar to those referring to the election, it will drive a coach and horses through the limits on election expenditure. There must be the same rules for the same two things if people are campaigning for the two things together in the same place at the same time. That is common sense otherwise it is a recipe for a huge amount of misunderstanding and chaos, and as I said, driving a coach and horses through some of the local election rules, not least on the limits on expenditure. That question needs a bit more thought by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

This has been a useful debate. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for opening it, but even more grateful to my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for their contributions. They recognised that there are difficulties in seeking to restrict the use of referenda too far. For example, Amendments 126A and 126E would replace the generic reference to,

“action taken to promote or oppose a referendum question leading to a contravention of an enactment or rule of law”.

I suspect that my noble friend Lord Greaves is presenting this as a probing amendment to find out what this is about and what sorts of enactments are considered unlawful. Clearly, no local authority could be obliged to consider through a referendum something which is unlawful. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that the provision as drafted achieves the result that he requires. The Equality Act 2010, for example, is clearly “an enactment”. The way in which Clause 47(2) is drafted actually caters for all the sorts of things that we would all want to catch and leaves no space for mischievous attempts to get round the protection, such as by phrasing a question cleverly so that it is not “the action requested” that would be unlawful, but the campaign surrounding the referendum.

The second ground that my noble friend mentioned was that the matter was not a local one over which the local authority has influence. My noble friend wanted to know what influence was and what would be the effect of replacing the word “influence” with the word “power”. Amendment 126D removes Clause 47(4)(b), which contains the definition of “influence”. We can appreciate the intention behind these amendments; nobody wants councils to be forced to hold irrelevant referendums and we have seen how the unconstrained power for electors to force parish polls has sometimes been misused by particular lobby groups to force polls on matters that are far removed from the remit of parish councils. However, if my noble friend is asking whether “influence” in Clause 47(4)(b) includes the general power of competence, I would say that indeed it does.

I do not believe that the alternative drafting suggested by noble Lords improves on what is in the Bill. When one considers the impact of Clause 1, one needs to be quite cautious about referring to situations where local authorities have “power” in future. I hope that noble Lords will accept my assurance that the formulation in Clause 47 is framed broadly enough to differentiate the circumstances where there is a manifestly inappropriate attempt to abuse the referendum system from one where there is an issue of local importance in which the local authority has a genuine role. My noble friend has acknowledged that his amendment is unnecessary in the light of the government amendment.

Amendments 126H and 128D seek to expand the fourth ground to give local authorities greater scope to reject a petition. We accept that there is a case for giving councils the flexibility to reject repetitive petitions or requests for referendums, and I hope that my noble friend will accept that the proposals set out in the government amendments that I outlined earlier will meet his concerns. I contend that the arrangements in those amendments offer a better solution to what we all hope will not in fact become a problem in practice. The key to deterring frivolous calls for a referendum is to have in place a robust system for dealing with such things.

I am not sure that my noble friend is right. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, grasped the point that cost is not the proper equation to be taken into account in judging whether a council should be able to refuse a referendum. Something may be extremely important to a local community that may involve little expenditure in terms of its implementation but would have a great impact on people’s lives, and it is perfectly proper that that should be a subject for a referendum if the local authority feels that that is correct. So long as we get the framework right, and I believe that we have, there will be no point in anyone attempting to abuse the system and so they may not bother.

On Amendment 128A again, I agree with my noble friend Lord True. As he has said, that amendment would enable any referendum to be refused. I cannot see that that is the purpose of the legislation, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Greaves will reflect on that.

Amendment 126CA of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seeks to provide that a local matter will be a matter determined to be so by the local authority. We agree that it is for local authorities to determine whether or not it is appropriate to hold a local referendum. Our provisions give local authorities discretion to do that, subject to certain safeguards that we have discussed today. I am therefore not convinced that this amendment either is necessary or would make any practical difference, given the wording of Clause 47(3), which refers to whether the local authority,

“thinks that the matter to which the referendum question relates is not a local matter”.

So, that phrasing is already there. I hope that, given these assurances, the amendment will be withdrawn.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I will think carefully about whether to withdraw it. Clearly I am not going to win on some of the amendments in the group, such as Amendments 128A and 128D, and it may well be that the clear majority view in the Committee is right. However, this has been a useful discussion and I thank noble Lords who have taken part.

The Minister said, and I think I quote him accurately, “So long as we get the framework right, then it’ll all be okay”. However, we are talking here about some of the framework, and you cannot rely on local authorities to get the framework right unless the legislation is right.

There are two areas that require more thought. The first and by far the most important concerns things that are illegal or contrary to council codes of conduct. The Minister said, rightly, that no council would want to carry out actions as the result of a referendum, or indeed to carry out a referendum, calling for things that were not legal. However, I think that what words say in legislation is important. As I read the proposal, and as I said when I was moving the amendment, the unlawful thing set out there is not the request in the referendum question—not what the question is calling for—and it is not the outcome of the referendum if it were successful; rather, it is the campaign, or action taken to promote or oppose the question in the referendum. That must mean what happens during the referendum campaign, not what happens after people have voted and the consequences that occur if the council decides to go ahead with a proposal as the result of a referendum being passed. There is a real difference there. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why I have got it wrong.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I may have misunderstood my noble friend. I have listened to what he is saying, and there is no way that any campaign of any description can be based on illegal acts. I hope that I have not misunderstood my noble friend. If I have, perhaps he might have a word with me and explain where I have gone wrong. Not only is it not possible for a referendum to be put that demands a council to perform illegally, it is clearly wrong for campaigners to offend against the law in the nature of the campaign or statements that they make in seeking to petition for a referendum.

[Lord Greaves]

The Minister is absolutely right. The law is the law, and if people break the law, they break the law. My point is that, as I read the legislation, the illegality refers to the likelihood of people breaking the law during the election campaign as a ground for refusing to have a referendum. Although I tabled an amendment to remove that, it was a probing amendment and I am not suggesting that it should be removed. I am suggesting that it should be made absolutely clear that the ground for refusing to have a referendum is that what is being asked for as the outcome of the referendum is not legal. I cannot understand why that should not happen. That is different from the conduct of the campaign, but I am happy to discuss this informally with the Minister.

Briefly, the Government should think about the “trivial” point. This clause currently refers to questions which are “vexatious or abusive”, wording which comes from the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to petitions. That Act is being repealed, and we will probably have the same debate over that.

A council ought to be able to reject a petition for a referendum on the grounds that the issues in it simply are not worth the candle—that they are “trivial”, or whatever wording the Government would come up with; that they are de minimis in some way. Perhaps the Government will reflect on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, government Amendment 129G makes a change to Clause 57. The purpose is to make it clear that the,

“function of passing of a resolution”,

in this chapter is, in the case of the Greater London Authority, a joint function of the mayor and the Assembly, and that the function is to be discharged in the same way as the Greater London Authority discharges any other functions that are specified as the joint responsibility of the mayor and the Assembly.

Government Amendment 128K removes the requirement for the Greater London Authority to hold a meeting to decide on a resolution to hold a referendum. It reflects the constitutional arrangements of the authority, which does not hold joint meetings of the mayor and the Assembly and will instead enable appropriate arrangements to be made for the mayor and the Assembly to come to a decision about whether to hold a referendum.

Government Amendments 128N and 128P make consequential changes to Clause 49(3), again removing the requirement for the Greater London Authority to hold a meeting. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this clarification is helpful and I urge them to accept these amendments.

In this group we have some amendments from my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Rennard. Amendment 128L seeks to make it clear that a resolution to hold a referendum may be taken at the next ordinary meeting of the authority following determination that it is appropriate to hold a referendum. Amendment 128M in consequence removes Clause 49(3), which requires a meeting to discuss a resolution to be held as soon as practicable. These amendments assume that the wording of Clause 49(2) currently requires a meeting to be specifically convened for the purpose of resolving whether to hold a referendum. I can assure noble Lords that that is not our intention. We believe that the inclusion of the word “for” in Clause 49(2) makes it clear that a meeting must not be specifically convened but that the issue may be added to the agenda of any meeting of the full council. I will listen to the debate of my noble friend and then perhaps I can respond to his proposal.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have two amendments in the group, Amendments 128L and 128M. Amendment 128L says “arrange a meeting”, and Amendment 128M says,

“as soon as is reasonably practicable after the determination is made”.

Clearly, if it is two and a half months until the next full council meeting of that authority,

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”,

could be taken to mean that the meeting has to be called more quickly than that. I am perfectly happy to accept the assurances that the Minister has already given. I was just concerned about the cost of these referendums to local authorities. The cost of organising an extra meeting of the full council is not cheap for any authority, especially for a small one where the cost is a larger proportion of its budget. It is not a trivial expense. If the Minister is putting that assurance on the record, then my amendments have achieved their purpose.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble friend for that observation. It is a matter of the precision of the language, and the key phrase is,

“the proper officer of the authority must arrange for a meeting”,

to be held. Had the phrase been that the proper officer “must arrange a meeting”, it would have been clear that a meeting must be specifically arranged. We believe that the wording in the Bill is clear. If it proves not to be the case, we are prepared to reconsider it. However, we believe that the meaning is clear. I would be grateful if my noble friend would withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

First, I heard what my noble friend said about the word “misleading” in the Bill and will reflect on whether that might be improved in some way. I hope that he welcomes the general principle that the authority should be able to make sure that the question being put is relevant and accurately reflects the situation, in relationship with the petition organiser. The last thing that one wants is a matter of semantics, where the petition organiser has to go back and get all the names and addresses again. This gives a necessary flexibility. I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw that amendment.

My noble friend indicated that he will withdraw Amendments 128T and 128V. Amendment 128U would require the local authority to hold a referendum on the same day as an election or other referendum within the next 12 months. Our provision currently requires that the referendum will be held on the same day as a referendum or election in the next six months. As I have already said, we believe that the provision in Clause 52(3) as drafted is sensible and practical. Councils may not know 12 months in advance whether a poll will be triggered. Generally, local people will want a referendum to be held as soon as practicable. The amendment proposed by my noble friend would tend towards delaying it. We are sympathetic to my noble friend Lord True’s general approach of leaving this to the local authorities to manage at their discretion. We do not consider this amendment necessary. If there are good reasons to delay a referendum for more than six months then the council can do so.

I hope that with the assurances I have given, and in particular the agreement to look again at the word “misleading”, that my noble friend will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

I am grateful for that and will certainly do so on that assurance. I clearly put these down as probing amendments. On the timing, having listened to the discussion I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that it ought to be down to the local authority. If they want to call a referendum immediately, they ought to be able to do so. It may well be an issue that will be dead in 12 months anyway. On the other hand, the wording ought not to preclude having the referendum on the same day as the next round of elections, as far as fixed elections are concerned—general elections now appear to be fixed but we will see—so long as they are not more than 12 months away. It may well be that some authorities that do not elect their council every year will not have an election within 12 months. Those that do ought to be able to have it on that day if that is what they think best on the principles set out by the noble Lord, Lord True. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the debate has shown that this is a complex and sensitive area. We would certainly not want councils to be innocent bystanders when important local issues were being debated. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling these amendments because at least they give us an opportunity to check whether the words in the Bill reflect what we want out of this process. I suspect that not just the Electoral Commission but the LGA itself will want to reflect on this area. Currently, any publicity published by an authority will have to be in accordance with the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity, which means that it has to be even-handed and responsible. It is necessary for the recommended practice to allow local authorities to put their case in a proper fashion. Generally, authorities are restrained from publishing any publicity material relating to a referendum question on issues such as whether to adopt executive arrangements. The scope of local referendums, however, is such that there is the possibility of questions being put which could have significant impact on communities. We believe that it is right that councils should be able to play a part in the process when the referendum has been triggered by a petition or request. Referendums such as have been proposed by my noble friend unnecessarily restrict the position of local councils.

The arrangements for authorities to control expenditure are already set out in Clause 53, coupled with an authority’s wider duty to have regard to the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity. They are adequate to ensure that excessive amounts of public money are not spent on publicity material for referendums. I hope that these explanations and assurances persuade my noble friend that he can withdraw his amendment. This is an area where local authorities are likely to want to satisfy themselves that the arrangements as set out in the Bill meet their need to protect community interests as they see them. With that, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

I am grateful to noble Lords for the discussion. It is an indication of the complexity of the issue that I have agreed with most of the things that most noble Lords have said on all sides; it is in no circumstances straightforward. As I hope I said, I moved the amendment to probe and, in order to probe, I proposed something quite different from what was in the Bill. There are good arguments on both sides. I firmly believe that local authorities, faced with what they might think of as a hostile referendum question, should be able to put their point of view forward and, if it is a complex question, should be able to explain it.

It is quite possible, of course, that the local authority will be in favour of the referendum question, in which case it is not clear why they should spend any money at all. Perhaps they think that the people organising it are incompetent and will not do it very well. Who knows? One can imagine lots of different circumstances.

I am firmly of the countervailing view that local authorities ought not to be able to get involved in promoting referendum campaigns which are effectively being put forward by parties or party-political candidates—or any candidate in local elections—for political purposes. That would be quite wrong and quite contrary to the present code of publicity. It is difficult to see how to draw up regulations which cater for both the extreme circumstances of a hostile referendum which the authority thinks would seriously wreck its strategy and policies in key areas and, on the other hand—

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That may be so. I am not a lawyer.

[Lord Greaves]

I am grateful for all that. I have forgotten what I was going to say. What was the first of those three things that the Minister answered?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sorry, the noble Lord is asking me to do his remembering for him. I have enough of a job to remember what I am supposed to be doing myself, if I might say so. Perhaps I may continue.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, talked about the reports of the Delegated Powers Committee. In fact, some of the points that he made were in an earlier report, published on 16 June. However, there is now another report—indeed, the ink is scarcely dry on it; it is rubbing off on my hands here—about these matters. I reassure the noble Lord that in general terms we take the opinions of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee seriously, and it is likely that we will respond positively to its suggestions and observations. I hope that the committee will accept that.

On the regulations in new Section 9MG about the conduct of referendums for mayoral elections, those referendums are binding, which is why they are rather different from referendums conducted under these provisions, which are not binding on local authorities.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords—

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not able to give a specific answer to that. All I can say is that the noble Baroness will be aware of the current situation in respect of parish polls and we will be consulting on the parish regime and, no doubt, consulting the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in particular.

[Lord Greaves]

I have just a couple of points. When we get to Clause 56 on parish councils we will have a stand part debate. It would be extremely helpful if the Government had some fairly clear ideas on where they are going on parish councils because those are the questions we will be asking.

The Minister said that the Government thought that it was right that people in an area should have a say on whether or not there should be a referendum, but if there is a petition signed by 5 per cent of the people to have a referendum, why should that prevail over an alternative petition in the same area signed by 10 per cent or 20 per cent of people who do not want a referendum?

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, we do not see the case for these amendments, which would limit the registering and declaring of interests to financial interests. That would take us back to the days before the Widdicombe committee in 1988, when there was widespread concern about the treatment of non-pecuniary interests, which led to the strengthening of the requirements relating to pecuniary interests. There are clearly situations where non-financial interests are relevant to decision-making by councillors, and it is right that the public are aware of such interests so that they can see that decisions are being made fairly and transparently. I hope that my noble friend will see the merit of the argument and withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I apologise. I should have jumped up before the Minister. I will speak to Amendments 98K and 98M in this group.

On the two other amendments in the group, Amendments 98J and 98L, which would remove “and other” and “or other” respectively, an important, if not fundamental, point to be made is that the Government are proposing to use in this Bill language which in local government is rather out of date. Local government used to talk about financial interests and non-financial interests. If you had a financial interest, you had to declare it. You then had to do whatever the council instructed you to do, such as leave the room or sit there and not speak. If you had a non-financial interest, you had to declare it, but you were not usually subject to those sanctions.

My experience is that local government nowadays talks about personal and prejudicial interests, which are similar. However, prejudicial interests, while they include financial interests, are wider ranging and may include interests which are not directly financial but are nevertheless thought to be prejudicial to somebody taking part in discussion and debate. Personal interests, which have to be declared, are those which people should know about but are not thought to be prejudicial to people taking part in a debate. It seems to be common practice in local government nowadays for those words to be used. I was fairly sure that they had been used in the previous legislation, although I have not looked it up. Perhaps along with my noble friend, I would ask the Government to check the nomenclature, because there is no point putting in legislation words which are not now used on the ground and, in any case, are narrower perhaps, and less clear certainly, than the words and categories now used in local government.

My amendments in this group follow on from the amendments in the previous group. They are part of a package of the way we suggest the new standards regime needs to be changed. First, if there is to be a local system of councillors being sanctioned by local committees and no National Standards Board procedure, there needs to be an appeals procedure written into the system. There has to be a way in which someone who feels aggrieved by a local decision is able to appeal to a wider group against the sanction made against them. As I understand it, this is normal human rights and administrative tribunal procedure. In many ways these bodies will be operating as administrative tribunals and we hope that the Government will look at this issue. We suggest that it should not be a national quango such as the Standards Board for England and that it should not be run by central government; it should be operated within local government by representatives of local government and it should be set up in co-operation with the LGA. As my noble friend Lord Shipley said, we have set out ways in which this can be done.

My second point concerns parish councils. The Government have not bottomed the issue of parish councils on this new standards regime. I have a long briefing about the problems that it will cause to parish councils but I shall not read it all out. If parish councils have to operate their own procedures, there will clearly be resource implications. Big town councils might be able to do it—although it might be wasteful of their funding—but small parish councils will not possibly be able to do it. If there are many individual local codes so that parish councils operate different systems and some do not have any, how will members of parish councils be trained to understand the code? How will parish clerks, who play an absolutely crucial role, be trained in the new system?

My experience from talking to people involved in standards committee throughout the country is that where there are lots of parish councils they seem to occupy quite a high proportion of the time of standards committees. The reason for this is obvious: parish councillors are not getting the expert advice on standards matters—on declarations of interest and so on—which they ought to be getting; and parish clerks are perhaps not being trained or not passing on that advice. I am a huge fan of parish councils but there may be something about parish-level politics and government that leads to individual rivalries and encourages people to make complaints against each other. Whatever it is, there is no doubt that parishes form quite a large part of the workload of standards committees in many different places. To leave them adrift, as this Bill seems to do, does not seem the right way to go.

In our view, the parishes probably need their own system. That system ought to be operated via the established means of communication and training that parish councils have with the National Association of Local Councils and other bodies such as the county organisations, and there ought to be county-level standards committees for parish councils. Whatever the system is, doing it within the parish council community is a sensible idea—particularly if the parish council finds itself cast adrift with a district that does not have a system. In any case, if districts have different codes of conduct and different systems for standards committees, the parish councils will have to join in those willy-nilly whether or not they agree with the systems and the codes. A separate parish system seems to be the way to look at things.

My final point relates to criminal offences. Again, we think the Government have not thought this issue through properly. On failures to declare interests, a major failure is a very serious matter indeed, whether it be a failure to register or a failure to declare during a meeting. A minor failure would require a sanction—but not a draconian sanction such as being hauled up before a magistrates' court. Yet the government system seems to mean that if the offence of not declaring or not registering an interest is not sufficiently serious for the DPP to agree to prosecute, there will be no sanctions at all. That does not seem to be the right way forward.

As for the criminal investigations and vexatious complaints, that needs thinking through; there are enough vexatious complaints on standards already that end up with people being found not guilty and having no sanctions against them—or, in my case, the complaint was proved and the sanction was nothing. People can imagine what happened. There are enough cases of people using the standards procedure for political or personal vexatious purposes. Think of the prospects of this being used when criminal sanctions are possible. You would get massive headlines in the local papers that the complaints had been made, it would all come to nothing but the damage would all have been done. It has to be thought through a bit more carefully.

I join my noble friend Lord Tope in hoping that we can have discussions with the Government in the mean time and that at the very least we can get the thing thought through again. If no change occurs at the end of the day, so be it—but we are convinced that the Government have not yet got it quite right.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I take a great deal of comfort from my noble friend Lord Bates, who shares my view of the ability of the north-east to develop common policies where it wishes to do so. There are individual differences between Teeside, Tyneside and Wearside. You would not want to say you were in Newcastle when you were in Washington—I remember somebody getting into terrible trouble for doing so. Locality is very specific and the north-east has different characteristics. It is not homogenous and there are methods of getting economic development in the north-east which do not depend on having a single body to deliver it. A coalition of different bodies with a common policy may well be a much more effective method for doing so.

I gave way to my noble friend when I was talking about the West Country. If I might take Bristol as an example, it is far better for the local partners to develop policies for the specific issues it faces, and for Cornwall to do likewise. I strongly believe that any economies of scale that a regional approach may have are more than outweighed by an absence of local knowledge and commitment and the consequent loss of responsiveness to local circumstances. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who asked why the Gloucester, Swindon and Wiltshire LEP was rejected, I would say that, although there was some business support for the proposal, other businesses in the area felt that a different geographical approach was right. Ministers have gone back and asked the partners to discuss their proposals again in order to develop an approach which takes the full range of local views into account. So the matter is not concluded; it is still under debate, and the Government await evidence on which to make their decision.

[Lord Greaves]

I will give my noble friend a slight rest. Does he not accept that not only are the Government apparently out of step with what most people in the north-east think but their thinking on regionalism is completely out of step with pretty well every other country in Europe of a similar size? It really risks England becoming the most centralised country in the whole of western Europe. While what he says about LEPS and putting the emphasis at a more local level might well be a perfectly acceptable way forward, the real problem is that the LEPs are being deprived of pretty well all the resources which the RDAs and regional bodies have at the moment. Therefore, unless they are lucky enough to get some of this relatively small amount of regional development fund money, they are going to be toothless.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I should remind the noble Lord that I do not consider £1.4 billion in the regional growth fund to be insignificant. Noble Lords may well feel—and they clearly do—that it is better that the taxpayer should fund large redistributions through RDAs, but there may be other ways in which economic policy can be directed, as my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond mentioned. She talked about tax incentives. Far be it for me, as a very lowly member of the Government, to challenge the Treasury on tax incentives, but there are different ways of doing these things other than handing out taxpayers’ largesse. I emphasise that that is the way in which this Government are thinking.

Perhaps if I talk about the north-east, I might be steering into danger. I am not too frightened of doing so because we should recognise that the north-east does not have a single monolithic economy. The region has a varied economic geography, with significant economic poles, across the Rivers Tyne and Wear and the River Tees. Each place has a different industrial heritage and different strengths, opportunities and threats. The local authorities in Tees Valley have a strong track record in working together and were quick to put forward an application to form a local enterprise partnership. This argues that they recognise the benefits of these new arrangements. A partnership has now been established, covering the authorities in the rest of the region. As Vince Cable has made clear, this is not to say that some form of co-operative arrangement across the north-east is not justified if local partners want it. I said that at Second Reading and I have just said it again. However, I strongly question whether a regional development agency, with all its attendant complexity and bureaucracy, is necessary to achieve this.

The previous Government gave RDAs the task of narrowing the gap in growth rates between the prosperous region of the greater south-east and the rest of England, and provided them with significant resources over a sustained period to help them achieve this. However, it was a target that they failed to meet. Between 1990 and 1999, the real gross value added per head in the greater south-east grew by around 1.8 per cent in each year, compared with around 1.4 per cent in the other six regions—a gap of 0.4 of a percentage point. Between 1999 and 2009, annual growth in the greater south-east fell to 1.4 per cent, compared to 0.8 per cent in the other regions—a gap of 0.6 of a percentage point. Therefore, the gap in growth rates has widened by around 0.2 of a percentage point. It is time to try a new policy, even in the north-east.

As the White Paper makes clear, we are encouraging businesses, local authorities and their partners to develop local enterprise partnerships based on real economic areas, rather than artificial administrative regions. The new partnerships are based on where people live and work. Businesses and civic leaders will work together to drive sustainable economic growth and create the conditions for private sector job growth in their communities. Partners have responded to this invitation in an enthusiastic and innovative way. So far, 31 partnerships have been asked to form boards, covering 87 per cent of England’s population and a similar proportion of businesses. We are actively engaged with partners in the remaining areas, helping them to develop proposals that will meet our broad criteria.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, that five LEPs have been asked to establish their bases in areas that cover the east of England. I assure the noble Lord that there will be partnerships covering the entire region. There will be no businesses or parts of the population that are not covered by an LEP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The skills will be developed as part of the skills policy of the Government. My honourable friend in another place, the Minister, Mr John Hayes, has recently announced a skills strategy for the country. If we have not debated it in this House, it is because we have been very busy debating other things. However, it is a very important strategy, and it is part and parcel of the strategy for economic growth in this country.

Perhaps I may continue to describe the regional growth fund. It is intended to encourage private sector enterprise and create sustainable jobs. In particular, it is designed to help places currently reliant on the public sector to make the transition to private sector-led growth. I suspect that there is a feeling across the House that this is important. Once again we are encouraging proposals to come from the bottom up, responding to local circumstances. When the first round of bidding closed at the end of January, we had received nearly 450 proposals, showing that there is a significant appetite for an approach of this kind. My noble friend Lord Heseltine is chairing the panel which will be selecting the best of these proposals; and noble Lords have referred to my noble friend in contributions to this debate. Noble Lords will need no reminding that encouraging growth throughout the country is a cause dear to his heart.

[Lord Greaves]

I apologise for intervening again. The resources may be significant, as the Minister said, but they are considerably less than the resources available at the moment, either through RDA or through the regional housing pots and all the other resources, which are being either dramatically cut back or scrapped altogether. Is not the problem that many of these places that have put forward good, exciting schemes and want to get ahead will be denied a penny because they will not win the competition that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is presiding over?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot guarantee that all the 450 proposals will find funding. However, I can be sure that the ones for which funding is found will be successful and provide opportunities for the people in those areas.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, missed from his list of public sector burdens the stretches of track which still exist and belong to the residuary body. He might have mentioned that—perhaps I did not hear him—but, as he is nodding, I think that he missed it out.

It is very important that some stretches of track should remain within the public sector in some way or other, pending the glorious day when the railway is returned to those lines that were closed down and had their tracks removed. Obviously, I refer to the Colne to Skipton line, much of which belongs to the county councils of Lancashire and north Yorkshire because it was transferred from the old West Riding county council. However, the track between the old county boundary and Colne was never transferred to Lancashire, so it is very important that, at the very least, it remains in public sector ownership. I declare an interest as a patron of the Skipton East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership, or SELRAP. I merely add that point to the very important list of issues. Of course, because the Colne to Skipton stretch includes lots of bridges, the county council is reluctant to take over responsibility for the former line because it claims that liability for the bridges would cost a vast amount of money, although the residuary body has not spent much on them at all in the 15 years since privatisation.

I merely add that little pebble into the pond.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for tabling Amendment 25, because it gives the Government an opportunity to put on record the decision to include BRB (Residuary) Ltd in the list of bodies to be abolished.

As the noble Lord may know, consultations on the decision have been ongoing for some time. Many historical obligations associated with railway structures continue to rest with BRB and cannot be transferred with title through the normal property conveyancing process but must be transferred to someone else, such as the Secretary of State or some other public body under a transfer scheme. That can be done only by primary legislation, which is why BRB is mentioned in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, BRB is also liable for the industrial injury claims from former railway industry employees. It would be more difficult to transfer BRB to the Secretary of State for those claims to be dealt with without having a statutory transfer scheme, which is again why the body has been included in this Bill.

BRB (Residuary) Ltd is a public limited company that was created in 2001 to manage and dispose of British Rail’s commercial property assets, to manage historical liabilities for industrial injury claims and to maintain some 4,000 or so railway structures that are no longer used for railway purposes—to which the noble Lord referred as the burdensome estate.

The intention to abolish BRB once it has achieved its objective of maximising money from the disposal of its assets has been in place for some time. The inclusion of the body in Schedule 1 is necessary in order to wind up the body fully, as otherwise it would not be possible to transfer certain liabilities relating to the burdensome estate. Its inclusion in Schedule 1 will also facilitate the transfer of residual assets and liabilities to other parts of the public sector in the most cost-effective manner. For example, the conveyancing of the individual structures alone would cost approximately £6 million in the absence of a statutory transfer scheme, which the Bill provides for.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the cost implications. Savings on staff costs, premises and accounts, audit et cetera are expected to be around £6 million in 2013-14 and £6.9 million per annum thereafter. On the number of jobs that may be involved, we currently envisage that roughly 30 posts would be made redundant as a result of these changes.

Although I have not provided detailed information on some of the structures that the noble Lord asked about—I hope that he will allow me to write to him when I have found out any detail on those that is available to me—in the light of the information that I have provided, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, ultimately, there is no greater safeguard than the will of Parliament, as expressed through the accountability of Ministers at the Dispatch Box, on all issues. I understand exactly what noble Lords are saying from all sides of the House, but for a Government committed to building sustainability into all their activities, there is no need to make it explicit. It is implicit in all that this Government are doing.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am grateful for some of the assurances that the Minister has given. But the debate which has taken place on this amendment—I thank everyone who has taken part—comes to the core of a major flaw in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested. Sustainable development is just one example of the safeguards written in countless reams of legislation relating to the bodies listed in the schedules to this Bill.

The Minister said that I am trying to make one further requirement: I am tempted to say that I am trying to make a requirement. As the Bill is set out, there are few clear legislative requirements for when functions are transferred from existing bodies to other bodies, whether they are existing bodies being closed down or they are just being run down and having some of their functions transferred.

There was a slight diversion in the discussion about national parks. Indeed, national parks are one of the important areas to be included in our discussions about the particular bodies affected by this Bill. I do not want to pre-empt that debate, except to say that it is very good that the Defra Minister, my noble friend Lord Henley, will take part in that debate. Finding out exactly what the Government intend for national parks will be a crucial part of the scrutiny of this Bill. I thank the Government and my noble friend Lord Henley for that. No doubt my noble friend Lord Taylor is rather pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will be taking part in it. There is no doubt that national parks authorities are in the process of selling off or leasing out property for other people to manage. I raise the issue of the Losehill educational centre in the Peak District near Castleton. The national parks authority is considering proposals by people who are willing to buy it and take it over. So there is a certain amount of selling-off going on as a result of reduced budgets and there is a great deal of concern and alarm over Losehill, but that is a diversion from this debate.

The Minister said, “It is about making public bodies more accountable and more efficient”. I am sorry the previous group of amendments was not moved because accountability is crucial here. If functions are being moved to the private sector in some cases—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If another non-departmental public body takes them on, that will indeed be the case.

On the whole business of freedom of information, it might be opportune for me to say that the Government are committed to extending the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency, and a number of options for meeting this pledge—including the further extension to additional bodies carrying out public functions—are being considered by the Ministry of Justice. I therefore expect the House to be informed about this during the passage of the Bill.

[Lord Greaves]

Can I follow that with a question? If a forest was sold to a private landowner and the terms of the sale included a continuation of existing access for the public to the forest and its facilities, would that still be classed as a public function even though it was being carried out by a private landowner?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

To the extent that the sale would impose conditions on any buyer, I imagine that the terms of such a sale would insist that this right of access was written into the agreement. Indeed, to the extent that the Government are responsible for safeguarding public interest in this respect, it would be for them to ensure that the agreement was held to by any prospective purchaser.

[Lord Greaves]

I am sorry; I did not make myself terribly clear. If right of access, which perhaps is a public function, and other public goods provided by that forest are to continue, would the private landowner be subject to the freedom of information provisions?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sorry but I will, if I may, go back to the whole business of public access. Public access is a right; it is enshrined in law. If people have right of access, they have right of access; it cannot be challenged. It would be up to the Government to ensure that any body that was party to a contract that included public access maintained that responsibility.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I might change my wording to “custom”.

[Lord Greaves]

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might consider that the relevant statistic is the number of occasions on which the House divides on such instruments rather than the number of occasions on which the Division results in their being voted down. It is clear that the House divides on instruments rather more often than it votes them down, largely as a result of this Liberal Democrat group putting matters to the vote in the previous Parliament. The number of such Divisions is not huge, but there has been a handful of them in my recollection rather than none at all. If the House accepts that it can divide, it must accept that it is capable of voting instruments down.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord has expressed his point of view and I have given him the point of view from the Dispatch Box. It would be useful if he were able to provide instances that he feels show an abuse of government. I would be grateful to receive them.

[Lord Greaves]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I previously backed up what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, albeit in perhaps a slightly less dramatic way, but there is certainly some reluctance there. Is the Minister saying that if we meet that reluctance in the coming weeks, when inevitably we will want to get factual information out of organisations, we can say to people, “The Minister in the Lords, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, says that it’s okay for you to talk to us”? Can we use the Minister’s name in that way?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Heavens above, my Lords, I do not think that I can really be such a door-opener. What might we find? I say to all noble Lords that we have access to public bodies. Whether we are on the Front or the Back Benches in this House, we are capable of tabling Questions and we can find out facts. It is quite proper to do so if things are in the public domain. The Library is there to help us and, if we seek opinions, no doubt we all have contacts that we are able to use. I do not want this debate on the Bill to be stifled by ignorance but here we are talking about the consultation process that we are seeking to bring in through the Bill, once enacted.